On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
On December 31 2016 05:38 NonY wrote: The author talked very little about what it means to be a successor. Even when we accept his different sub-genre argument, there remain other indicators that SC2 is a successor. Look at how many players and fans replaced BW with SC2, for instance. He doesn't seem very interested in discussing succession at all and instead focuses entirely on game design in his discussion and arguments, but still chose to make his title, main statement and conclusion about succession. I don't get it. I got enticed into reading something I thought I'd never read before and it's just another game design article that I feel like I've already read five versions of.
LOTV basically is a huge "fuck you" to the entire player base that enjoyed playing WOL/HOTS.
Wait you were enjoying yourself during WoL/HotS? It's hard to tell with you man.
I think it's basically a sensational click baity title to get some traction and a reason to talk about why some players prefer one over the other, and a discussion about mechanics in RTS.
I noticed that the mods changed the title, it's a good example of the click bait nature; Nobody, or at least a lot fewer people, would read an article or rather an opinion piece titled "Starcraft II and Brood War belong to different Genres" over "SC2 is not a true successor to Brood War". And the title worked, TL is all up in arms about it, soo is Reddit, if this were 2011 with massive traffic on /r/Starcraft and Teamliquid the article would get serious buzz, essentially what I'm trying to say is that the title worked, and if it hadn't been titled this way, you probably wouldn't have read it in the first place.
BTW, just rewatched TSL 2 Finals yesterday, good games
Just to be clear, the piece was never published with the succession title. The OP of the Reddit and TL posts chose to ad lib the succession title. Succession was removed from the title days prior to publication.
It's in the URL... I don't mean to drag this on but I'm guessing you changed the headline and overlooked the URL.
If you read my prior post, this is explained. WordPress creates a URL when an article is first saved as a draft, not published. This article was never published with that title.
Yeah I read that. I publish with WordPress myself. I just don't get why you're so bad at understanding what happened. You're going in circles.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point. My point is that I never intended to publish an article with that title. So I didn't. I didn't worry about the URL because it's just a URL. It also contains a WWW. That is not relevant to the content.
On December 31 2016 09:43 Euphorbus wrote: If SC BW would be like SC2, yes it would be like SC2. But all things you mention can not in itself explain it. I am not denying there is an explanation. I am saying it isn't obvious and the fact that many elements are needed to stack on top of each other, and many of them unclear, proves exactly my point. And what is so bad about that? Why would one expect something to be completely transparent and predictable? It is already amazing enough how well something like the effect of MBS was predicted.
I hope that from the way I argue, you can see how I think and why I am not convinced. I am trained to try to not see patterns that aren't there.
I can make more arguments as to why I disagree with pathing inefficiencies being a major cause, but all those details are not important. I have seen nothing new, and in the past, I was not convinced. Neither am I now. One would actually expect the dynamics of an RTS game to be way less predictable and way more counter intuitive than it turned out to be. It is probably synergy and non-linear behavior of these elements. It is probably an emergent property, and not a direct effect of a single game feature.
More important, no one, including myself, made the argument against SC2, that battles wouldn't be drawn out in space and time enough. We knew it was in SC BW and we knew we liked it. But we didn't see or predict certain game features eliminating it from SC2. And yes, we debated high ground advantage to death.
What useless drivel. Do you yourself actually understand what you are trying to say with all that text.
Really? All that text?
Are you upset about the URL? If so, why?
You are responsible for the url. The url resulted in the titles on other sites. I guess the point would be that you cannot deny responsibility of that, which is fair. Though I do not know why Nony is drawing at straws at it so much. He used to be more about content in the past. It should be obvious to both of you what happened, and what the other means. I do not know why both of you are feigning ignorance.
On December 30 2016 21:59 shadymmj wrote: one thing where i disagree with the article is the claim that sc2 has more strategy. i've played a lot of sc2, watched a lot of BW.
i can always call games in sc2 with decent accuracy, say which strategy is good against which because it's fairly cut and dry as to what beats what.
i have learned not to call BW games too early except in zvz and pvp. so often you can win a battle but lose the war.
I agree with this, in my mind the conclusion is kinda opposite as article, I feel like in SC2 it's more the real time aspect that matters most, where you get to trap the attention of your opponent for huge damage is what decides games a lot, whereas BW has more strategy where you gradually build up your win against your opponent's decisions. In SC2, you don't gradually build strategies against your opponent as much, but you have more gamble style approaches. In BW the micro aspect blends with strategy more too because of how you don't get crippled and the mechanics like pathing lower dmg and highground/defender advantage and the general design of the races, not hardcounter, etc. So my conclusion is opposite, though BW has mechanical obstacles too... it certainly doesn't feel easier at all, opposite to me (only played WoL watched quite a bit of lotv). There are some strategic games in lotv but seriously I think it's a lot more about speedy traps and gambles. Which is also in BW in a different way that I think is more fair... honestly I would say BW is probably both more strategic and mechanical^^
On December 31 2016 09:42 Mahanaim wrote: Um... well... so since I enjoy SC2 a lot more than I enjoyed BW back in the days, does that mean I don't know how to differentiate between a good game and a bad game?
The Article never discusses whether SC2 is good, bad, better or worse. It actually congratulates SC2 for being the best at what it is, while trying to argue that Neo-RTS are a different Genre than Classic-RTS and it also touches on certain advantages of Classic RTS over Neo-RTS.
I'd generally agree, I don't like the direction SC2 went, but with what Blizzard tried to accomplish they basically did the best they possibly could have done with an RTS without the primary focus being mechanics
On December 31 2016 09:43 Euphorbus wrote: If SC BW would be like SC2, yes it would be like SC2. But all things you mention can not in itself explain it. I am not denying there is an explanation. I am saying it isn't obvious and the fact that many elements are needed to stack on top of each other, and many of them unclear, proves exactly my point. And what is so bad about that? Why would one expect something to be completely transparent and predictable? It is already amazing enough how well something like the effect of MBS was predicted.
I hope that from the way I argue, you can see how I think and why I am not convinced. I am trained to try to not see patterns that aren't there.
I can make more arguments as to why I disagree with pathing inefficiencies being a major cause, but all those details are not important. I have seen nothing new, and in the past, I was not convinced. Neither am I now. One would actually expect the dynamics of an RTS game to be way less predictable and way more counter intuitive than it turned out to be. It is probably synergy and non-linear behavior of these elements. It is probably an emergent property, and not a direct effect of a single game feature.
More important, no one, including myself, made the argument against SC2, that battles wouldn't be drawn out in space and time enough. We knew it was in SC BW and we knew we liked it. But we didn't see or predict certain game features eliminating it from SC2. And yes, we debated high ground advantage to death.
What useless drivel. Do you yourself actually understand what you are trying to say with all that text.
You are responsible for the url. The url resulted in the titles on other sites. I guess the point would be that you cannot deny responsibility of that, which is fair. Though I do not know why Nony is drawing at straws at it so much. He used to be more about content in the past. It should be obvious to both of you what happened, and what the other means. I do not know why both of you are feigning ignorance.
Gotcha. I think I do understand the point now. I think my expectation was for folks to be more charitable about the URL. But at the same time it's my responsibility to avoid creating such a situation in the first place.
On December 31 2016 05:45 Hildegard wrote: Shower thought: Auto-mining or multi-select buildings, more than 12 unit selection etc. could be upgrades in SC3.
On December 31 2016 05:45 Hildegard wrote: Shower thought: Auto-mining or multi-select buildings, more than 12 unit selection etc. could be upgrades in SC3.
agree^^
That sound good but it would be awful in a real game, first because of a clear immersion break and also because that it would mean that you become exponentially better as game go on especially at low level, it is pretty fucking hard to comeback when your worker don't auto-mine and you have to manually click every barrack to produce a marine and your opponent who have a better economy and is in the lead also doesn't have that to worry about, just try it in one of your game for fun your gonna get destroyed.
But most of all it would just be frustrating and useless, just like if hotkey, control group ect... became upgrades, either you don't have it for anyone or you have it for everybody.
On December 31 2016 05:38 NonY wrote: The author talked very little about what it means to be a successor. Even when we accept his different sub-genre argument, there remain other indicators that SC2 is a successor. Look at how many players and fans replaced BW with SC2, for instance. He doesn't seem very interested in discussing succession at all and instead focuses entirely on game design in his discussion and arguments, but still chose to make his title, main statement and conclusion about succession. I don't get it. I got enticed into reading something I thought I'd never read before and it's just another game design article that I feel like I've already read five versions of.
LOTV basically is a huge "fuck you" to the entire player base that enjoyed playing WOL/HOTS.
Wait you were enjoying yourself during WoL/HotS? It's hard to tell with you man.
I think it's basically a sensational click baity title to get some traction and a reason to talk about why some players prefer one over the other, and a discussion about mechanics in RTS.
I noticed that the mods changed the title, it's a good example of the click bait nature; Nobody, or at least a lot fewer people, would read an article or rather an opinion piece titled "Starcraft II and Brood War belong to different Genres" over "SC2 is not a true successor to Brood War". And the title worked, TL is all up in arms about it, soo is Reddit, if this were 2011 with massive traffic on /r/Starcraft and Teamliquid the article would get serious buzz, essentially what I'm trying to say is that the title worked, and if it hadn't been titled this way, you probably wouldn't have read it in the first place.
BTW, just rewatched TSL 2 Finals yesterday, good games
Just to be clear, the piece was never published with the succession title. The OP of the Reddit and TL posts chose to ad lib the succession title. Succession was removed from the title days prior to publication.
It's in the URL... I don't mean to drag this on but I'm guessing you changed the headline and overlooked the URL, which ended up causing the confusion you tried to prevent.
Going off a huge tangent, but in WordPress there is a way to change URL of posts/pages. On the edit page, below the title, you should see the URL(permalink) for the page. There should be an edit button next to it.
I am not sure if this works on wordpress.com, but it does work on self-hosted wordpress sites.
Only the sc2 community could say sc2 is not the successor of bw. There are more similarities than differences. Sc2 is still an attention based game with economy, army, micro and macro.
I played both games religiously. The only difference between bw and sc2 is the interface, ai and pathing.
On December 31 2016 15:02 todespolka wrote: Only the sc2 community could say sc2 is not the successor of bw. There are more similarities than differences. Sc2 is still an attention based game with economy, army, micro and macro.
I played both games religiously. The only difference between bw and sc2 is the interface, ai and pathing.
But it's apparently an AoE guy saying it, not SC community.
Ignoring the graphics and the newness that brought in sponsorship money and media attention, I agree they are the same genre. The main difference is that one is a good implementation, the other is a bad one.
I just saw on youtube that Blizzard had 12000 different builds of the game engine before release. Yet it took them till 2016 to make turrets of tanks tracking, allowing some micro as well as not making the tank look idiotic. It is just absurd. What about those 12000 different builds did they ever consider how crisp unit movement was in their new build?
Let´s talk about the in-build bnet latency of SC2. What about Lan latency for SC2, finally?
On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
I really thought very very long about "it was better in my day". This is just wrong. If only all older games get 2016 graphics, that will tell you a different story.
On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
Yes because we all know graphics is all that matter.
If anything that's worse too, because everyone is trying too hard to be super mega realistic which means in 5 years games will look like shit, but many old games had strong artistic direction that prevents them from seeming dated even now.
Sorry friend but when almost every $60 game that releases is a generic open world meme with the same mechanics, same progression, crafting, climb towers, a million sidequests and garbage story, yeah. Things were better when we had things like Fallout 2, System Shock, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Unreal, Quake etc.
Unless you're gonna backtrack and say "oh but what about the indie scene blah blah blah". Agreed, but those are not the games we're complaining about, and not the games whose graphics you're so eager to suck off. For the record my favourite game of 2016 is Enter the Gungeon so I'm not entirely ignorant about the indie scene.
On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
Yes because we all know graphics is all that matter.
If anything that's worse too, because everyone is trying too hard to be super mega realistic which means in 5 years games will look like shit, but many old games had strong artistic direction that prevents them from seeming dated even now.
Sorry friend but when almost every $60 game that releases is a generic open world meme with the same mechanics, same progression, crafting, climb towers, a million sidequests and garbage story, yeah. Things were better when we had things like Fallout 2, System Shock, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Unreal, Quake etc.
Unless you're gonna backtrack and say "oh but what about the indie scene blah blah blah". Agreed, but those are not the games we're complaining about, and not the games whose graphics you're so eager to suck off. For the record my favourite game of 2016 is Enter the Gungeon so I'm not entirely ignorant about the indie scene.
First, I never said anyting about graphic I don't really care about them and I play all my game in low because I have a crappy pc and I want good framerate. And for FIFA or any sport games I can't see how the mecanics where better in the early 2000 when it was just kick and run and now. Second Systen Shock and Planescape Torment are your definition of what games were betwen 1998 and 2007? Sorry to tell you that but those game sold like shit, so I don't see why the inde scene should be ignore when there are some huge commercial succes coming out if it, for exemple The Witness, Fez, Divinity : original sins, ect...
But most of all what about The Witcher, Mass Effect, the first bioshock, Fallout NV, Europa Universalis 4, Heart of Iron, Pillars of Eternity, Trine, ect... those are suppose to be shit? I mean you can say that you love older FPS and RPG better then the new but there is difference between that and saying evretying is garbage now.
Also since the first post included movie : Manchester by the sea and Room are amazing and Star wars 2 and Catwoman are terrible.Just like eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is great and Batman vs Superman is bad. There is not a lot that has change in movie in the last 20 years.
I don't think this is a "better game" kinda thread because we need to take in a couple of extra factors today.
the biggest one of course is mass appeal. no one seriously believes that LoL is a good game by any virtue other than sheer popularity. i guess you could say it's fun, like how many people find angry birds, plants vs zombies etc. fun. but just like how bieber is top of the charts, popularity says very little about quality imo.
the second one is complexity. I think BW is extremely complex - I still don't understand the finer aspects of it. although complex games can be fun they usually appeal to a niche audience.
so it's just a matter of what you're aiming for. ultimately we would like an RTS that is both intellectually demanding and appeals to most players, but that seems to be a pipe dream.
On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
Yes because we all know graphics is all that matter.
If anything that's worse too, because everyone is trying too hard to be super mega realistic which means in 5 years games will look like shit, but many old games had strong artistic direction that prevents them from seeming dated even now.
Sorry friend but when almost every $60 game that releases is a generic open world meme with the same mechanics, same progression, crafting, climb towers, a million sidequests and garbage story, yeah. Things were better when we had things like Fallout 2, System Shock, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Unreal, Quake etc.
Unless you're gonna backtrack and say "oh but what about the indie scene blah blah blah". Agreed, but those are not the games we're complaining about, and not the games whose graphics you're so eager to suck off. For the record my favourite game of 2016 is Enter the Gungeon so I'm not entirely ignorant about the indie scene.
First, I never said anyting about graphic I don't really care about them and I play all my game in low because I have a crappy pc and I want good framerate. And for FIFA or any sport games I can't see how the mecanics where better in the early 2000 when it was just kick and run and now. Second Systen Shock and Planescape Torment are your definition of what games were betwen 1998 and 2007? Sorry to tell you that but those game sold like shit, so I don't see why the inde scene should be ignore when there are some huge commercial succes coming out if it, for exemple The Witness, Fez, Divinity : original sins, ect...
But most of all what about The Witcher, Mass Effect, the first bioshock, Fallout NV, Europa Universalis 4, Heart of Iron, Pillars of Eternity, Trine, ect... those are suppose to be shit? I mean you can say that you love older FPS and RPG better then the new but there is difference between that and saying evretying is garbage now.
Also since the first post included movie : Manchester by the sea and Room are amazing and Star wars 2 and Catwoman are terrible.Just like eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is great and Batman vs Superman is bad. There is not a lot that has change in movie in the last 20 years.
Oh okay so what matters to you is if a game sells well or not, and not if it's any good.
By your logic Justin Bieber must be one of the greatest music artists of all time.
[insert thinking emoji here]
And yes, System Shock is much better than Bioshock, Fallout 1 and 2 are much better than their sequels, The Witcher games are pretty good but super overrated by casuals who never played Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment or other god-tier RPGs etc.
On December 31 2016 05:27 Dingodile wrote: Do we have any great successors? Look what happened to Diablo, PES, FIFA, GTA, CnC, Settlers, AoE etc... Same with movies. I really think the "prime time" at gaming and movie industries were around 1998-2007.
That sound a awfull lot like "it was better in my day" there is some amazing movies and games that comes out today. I mean I can hardly find why FIFA is suppose to be worst now then it was in 2001.
Yes because we all know graphics is all that matter.
If anything that's worse too, because everyone is trying too hard to be super mega realistic which means in 5 years games will look like shit, but many old games had strong artistic direction that prevents them from seeming dated even now.
Sorry friend but when almost every $60 game that releases is a generic open world meme with the same mechanics, same progression, crafting, climb towers, a million sidequests and garbage story, yeah. Things were better when we had things like Fallout 2, System Shock, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Unreal, Quake etc.
Unless you're gonna backtrack and say "oh but what about the indie scene blah blah blah". Agreed, but those are not the games we're complaining about, and not the games whose graphics you're so eager to suck off. For the record my favourite game of 2016 is Enter the Gungeon so I'm not entirely ignorant about the indie scene.
First, I never said anyting about graphic I don't really care about them and I play all my game in low because I have a crappy pc and I want good framerate. And for FIFA or any sport games I can't see how the mecanics where better in the early 2000 when it was just kick and run and now. Second Systen Shock and Planescape Torment are your definition of what games were betwen 1998 and 2007? Sorry to tell you that but those game sold like shit, so I don't see why the inde scene should be ignore when there are some huge commercial succes coming out if it, for exemple The Witness, Fez, Divinity : original sins, ect...
But most of all what about The Witcher, Mass Effect, the first bioshock, Fallout NV, Europa Universalis 4, Heart of Iron, Pillars of Eternity, Trine, ect... those are suppose to be shit? I mean you can say that you love older FPS and RPG better then the new but there is difference between that and saying evretying is garbage now.
Also since the first post included movie : Manchester by the sea and Room are amazing and Star wars 2 and Catwoman are terrible.Just like eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is great and Batman vs Superman is bad. There is not a lot that has change in movie in the last 20 years.
Oh okay so what matters to you is if a game sells well or not, and not if it's any good.
By your logic Justin Bieber must be one of the greatest music artists of all time.
[insert thinking emoji here]
And yes, System Shock is much better than Bioshock, Fallout 1 and 2 are much better than their sequels, The Witcher games are pretty good but super overrated by casuals who never played Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment or other god-tier RPGs etc.
No I am not saying sales determine if a games is good or not, I am saying that you can't say indie don't matter now when you talk about niche game like System Shock to say that games were better before. Those indie games are much more popular and have a big presence in the videogame industries, and there is some of them that are amazing.
I played Baldur's Gates and fallout 1-2 and a bit of tactics, they are very good games but it's not like that mean other RPG like New Vegas or the Witcher are not good. Also those type of game still exist, pillars of eternity, Divinity, wasteland 2 ect...
And I don't see why someone who didin't played a 20 years old game is suppose to be a casual.
EPT
