EPTAlso remember, Sirlin is the fellow who went so far as violating his own playing-to-win philosophy to support the banning of roll-canceling in CvS2, mainly because it was something that emphasized mechanical skill over "strategy".
Game Design: Mind vs Execution - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
anotak
United States1537 Posts
Also remember, Sirlin is the fellow who went so far as violating his own playing-to-win philosophy to support the banning of roll-canceling in CvS2, mainly because it was something that emphasized mechanical skill over "strategy". | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17716 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2008 13:49 Bill307 wrote: You are an idiot. First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena) Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators. And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them. Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking? I'm happy that SF fills stadiums, and that Tougeki vod shows a really sweet setup (looks like a regular professional fight, except the ring is replaced with the arcade cabinets  ).However, I don't see how you can say the crowd "makes a lot more noise" than for SC? I mean, not only didn't it seem like they did to me (it seemed about the same, which again seems about the same with most sports), but I'm not sure if you can compare it? The games are differently paced (ie an SC match lasts a good deal longer than a SF match, and by their very design any RTS game is going to have more 'downtime' than a fighting game) and held in different types of stadiums. Multitasking can probably be appreciated by even the most casual fan when it takes the form of something like boxer's tripple drop or something like that, although that's obviously not what you meant | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5779 Posts
| ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
or 이윤열 multitask. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote: I think you're reading my post wrong. "Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden "Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2" - MaybeNextTime That's a general 'you' - I didn't mean you specifically. "It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game." - Unentschieden First of all, you can continously get more efficient at these "repetitive, mindless busywork." So it is an acquired skill. The problem with SC's manual-mining/SBS macro is that - despite decision making associated with it as far as choosing when to pay your attention to them (i.e. cyclical, mundane macro tasks) - they are devoid of decision making within themselves (the mechanical routines like going through the buildings and manually telling workers to mine, that is). As for their being "useless" - they are not. They play a significant role in SC1's gameplay (emphisize micro-to-macro multi-tasking/decision making, time/attention management, rhythm, and largely prevent the snowball effect from occuring). Can you alter those mundane, mindless tasks into something that requires thought but retains SC1's frentic intensity/physical demands? For god's sake, YES! Then why not stop arguing about taking either of the extreme paths (keeping the old mechanics vs. removing them, justifying that they're mindless and mundane) and agree on a compromise (like the mineral mechanic)? "Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden We had this argument already andI agreed, thats why I refered to the other thread. Lets just drop this point in THIS thread. On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote: Second of all, what I meant by "asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics": I did not mean that getting rid of mundane macro-related tasks is "capping mechanics." I meant that in order to make SC2 a #1 type of game you'd have to put a cap as to how good one can get at mechanics (micro/macro/(multi-tasking)), simply because #1 type implies that one can get perfect mechanic through practice, which is not possible in #2 type. Sirlin's disappoitment with SC2's being #2 is identical to saying you want Blizzard to cap how good one can get at micro/macro. I have to admit, by now I´m confused about #1 and #2 and #whatever. What I was trying to say is that suggesting anyone wants a micro/macro cap i silly - especially Sirlin. What was meant is that a type of game should avoid "distinction skills" with high "requirements", little player interaction(both) and high "payoffs". Try to avoid stuff that is hard to do, boring to do AND worthwhile to do (if it wasn´t only obsessive perfectionists wouldn´t ignore it - how big is the real advantage of splittin your first 4 workers?) On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote: And thridly, I don't know what you meant by this: "The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?" - Unentschieden The point is that they attemted to weaken a strategy by making it hard to perform. But that simply gave the advantage to the players that managed to "overcome the interface" and by today many would argue that SC UI ever was a hurdle in the first place. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5779 Posts
On December 03 2008 21:09 the.dude wrote: what is the obsession with applying the starcraft mechanics with sc2? its going to be a different game. Yeah a little bit of macro is going to be taken out, but like another poster said sc2 is going to be more dynamic, with it being easier to attack different points of the map. Its not like all the macro is being taken out of the game. I feel the game will be much more exciting for spectators. Instead of saying, "wow look at him in that battle while still making more units" (which is very hard for a novice to see or appreciate), people will be saying something like, "wow it looks like he is attacking everywhere on the map at once." Can you, please, refrain from posting useless straw mans? You're grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand. Just stop. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2008 21:09 the.dude wrote: what is the obsession with applying the starcraft mechanics with sc2? its going to be a different game. Yeah a little bit of macro is going to be taken out, but like another poster said sc2 is going to be more dynamic, with it being easier to attack different points of the map. Its not like all the macro is being taken out of the game. I feel the game will be much more exciting for spectators. Instead of saying, "wow look at him in that battle while still making more units" (which is very hard for a novice to see or appreciate), people will be saying something like, "wow it looks like he is attacking everywhere on the map at once." A lot of other things have to be right in order to facilitate gameplay in which you are "attacking everywhere at once". If the game develops in such a way (that is, if it's the best way to play in the various matchups) then that's great, but we don't know that it will. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
how come sc isn't popular in japan? japan is, after all like THE place to be when it comes to videogames etc. perhaps because it's an american game? and because they're more into console games? If I could think of one nation where e-sports could take off it would be japan :o. Sorry for going off topic!!! edit: started thinking about this when I saw those SF videos... | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5779 Posts
The main reason why PC gaming and not console gaming took off in Korea is their animosity towards Japan after WW2, as far as I know. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Take a look at Final Fantasy XI, the game is like a carnival parade, and its full of japs | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
stay on topic boys. | ||
|
.risingdragoon
United States3021 Posts
On December 03 2008 13:49 Bill307 wrote: You are an idiot. First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena) Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators. And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them. Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking? lol get da fuk outta here. I repeat, GTFO  A gathering of a few hundred dedicated gamers is not the same as a gathering of casual spectators. That's like comparing a lan to a baseball game. You don't seem to know the difference b/w broad and niche appeal, where people of all ages (family with babies in hand, etc.) show up to watch sc and a few sf-playing adolescents showing up for irregular matches. Shiiit, you'd see the same couple of people in the seats if you hold that kind of stuff more than once. | ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
People did the same for WC3, saying that it's a different game, and because it's different, we have no way of analyzing it as we did for SC. Guess what? WC3 was an awful competitive game that was majorly reworked in TFT. And we know for a fact now that TFT is a shallower and less interesting game (for all the reasons that people explained 4 years ago) than SC. That is why we can talk about what's wrong with SC2. Because there are people who understand how the _fundamental_ mechanics of RTS work. Just because you have no fucking clue doesn't mean there aren't people who do. | ||
|
onepost
Canada297 Posts
On December 03 2008 15:42 maybenexttime wrote: They are not buzzwords. If you don't know what they mean (which you apparently do not) then refer to numerous MBS/auto-mining threads instead of deliberately derailing the thread. Could you refrain from downplaying my post out of sheer ignorance? I'm not going to explain them every damn time some ignorant like you accuses me of using buzzwords. I couldn't care less what someone as lazy as you thinks, tbh. If that makes you stop being an arrogant asshole thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiotic thread derailer: - rhythm: Vague. Used to define command input not going out of sync. - micro-to-macro multi-tasking: Focusing on both macro and micro, not on one to the detriment of the other. Typical quote: "He microed so much that he forgot to macro." - micro-to-macro decision making: Striking the most efficient balance between focusing on macro or micro tasks, assuming you cannot cope. - time/attention management: Keeping track of all that happens on a map and anticipating where your attention will be most needed next. - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding: Random string of buzzwords, or so the flagrant misuse of the word "feedback" suggests; I refer you to a dictionary. You should have taken the hint when I mentioned economics and politics: jargon does not throw me off. Now that you have the proof that you're talking to someone who understands the concepts involved (yet still disagrees with you), will you finally care to make a point, instead of downplaying everyone else's? Thank you in advance. | ||
|
Scooter
United States747 Posts
It's impossible to compare the two games, but the fact that they're both still so competitive after more than a decade attests to how good they are. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17716 Posts
On December 04 2008 01:43 naventus wrote: Idiots who come in here trumpeting how SC2 is different from SC BLAH BLAH BLAH should gtfo. People did the same for WC3, saying that it's a different game, and because it's different, we have no way of analyzing it as we did for SC. Guess what? WC3 was an awful competitive game that was majorly reworked in TFT. And we know for a fact now that TFT is a shallower and less interesting game (for all the reasons that people explained 4 years ago) than SC. That is why we can talk about what's wrong with SC2. Because there are people who understand how the _fundamental_ mechanics of RTS work. Just because you have no fucking clue doesn't mean there aren't people who do. I think you're going a bit too far with your hatred here and your statements are very much exaggerated. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5779 Posts
On December 04 2008 01:53 onepost wrote: If that makes you stop being an arrogant asshole thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiotic thread derailer: - rhythm: Vague. Used to define command input not going out of sync. - micro-to-macro multi-tasking: Focusing on both macro and micro, not on one to the detriment of the other. Typical quote: "He microed so much that he forgot to macro." - micro-to-macro decision making: Striking the most efficient balance between focusing on macro or micro tasks, assuming you cannot cope. - time/attention management: Keeping track of all that happens on a map and anticipating where your attention will be most needed next. - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding: Random string of buzzwords, or so the flagrant misuse of the word "feedback" suggests; I refer you to a dictionary. You should have taken the hint when I mentioned economics and politics: jargon does not throw me off. So as you've just proved, they are not buzzwords. I'm not going to write a paragraph describing each one of them just because you're not content with my "verbiage." I'm not going to repeat myself and explain why the UI changes Blizzard is implementing will negatively impact the gameplay traits represented by these "buzzwords." It's perfectly clear to anyone who's been following the MBS discussions and related topics, and you're just trying to be an ass. And you still don't seem to know what negative feedback in expanding means. Maybe you should do some digging yourself instead of referring me to a dictionary, smartass. Now that you have the proof that you're talking to someone who understands the concepts involved (yet still disagrees with you), will you finally care to make a point, instead of downplaying everyone else's? Thank you in advance. And what exactly do you disagree with? Again, I've made my point in several other threads and I don't feel like repeating myself just because some ignorant tells me to and accuses of using buzzwords. Go troll somewhere else. /ignore | ||
| ||
