| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On January 23 2009 23:19 drowned wrote: i can't link the thread title to his post Fun kills competitive gameplay? and then sc is good cuz its fun? someone enlighten me plz. (sorry for not getting the point) [Lack of] fun, not [lack of] skill, is what kills competitive play | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On January 23 2009 23:11 Lamentations wrote: Babysitting does not involve starting at the baby for hours on end, taking short breaks only to catch up on breathing or going to the bathroom. It is checking back on it often while doing other things :/ But you cannot qualify this as 'mindless babysitting'. This is what forces you to quickly move from different tasks. To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time. It's what makes the game competitive because of the ability for some to babysit better than others, if you want to refer to macro as babysitting. Also I felt that the OP, though well written, didn't introduce anything we really didn't know already. Most of the discussion in his post can be discovered in other threads in this forum and the read felt rather redundant, that's all. | ||
|
Phrujbaz
Netherlands512 Posts
| ||
|
bp1696
United States288 Posts
On January 23 2009 23:36 SkyTheUnknown wrote: One of the best postings around here since a long time. I'm unsure wheter to agree or disagree with the overall thesis of the text. But some parts of his writing are brilliant. For example I can't remember someone pointing out the principle of geometic dependence in StarCraft as clearly as he has done here. Agreed. We should focus on discussing these parts, such as the positional/geometric importance of your army, rather than engaging in a pointless flame wary about the OP's "mindless babysitting" comment. I think that SC2 in its current form has geometric importance for armies overall, but that maybe too many of the units are able to overcome those limitations (i.e. stalkers about to blink up/down cliffs, nydus worm emerging anywhere, colossus, reaper (not sure if it's still in), warp gate, etc). In BW, things could only overcome positional disadvantage at great cost. For example, arbiters required a lot of energy to be able to mass move their army somewhere, and dropships could only carry a few units so if you wanted to mass drop, you would have to heavily invest in many dropships. In SC2, it seems that mass armies are too easily movable and have too much ability to ignore the importance of cliffs and chokes. On the plus side of SC2 geometric strategies, I really like that the high templar are able to cast force fields. Aside from the obvious ability to create chokes, it seems like it could inspire really creative plays like separating one part of the opponent's army from the rest and take things down piecemeal (like pick off the tanks with a forcefield between the tanks and the hellions/support forces, then retreating). I also applaud the OP for a very well articulated post. | ||
|
dasanivan
United States532 Posts
diversity really has nothing to do with "casual" or "hardcore." starcraft wasn't considered "hard," really, and starcraft 2 doesn't have to be "hard" either. If there is diversity, the players themselves will meld the (hopefully) meta game that starcraft 2 will be into the challenge that hardcore gamers want, and still allow casual gamers to have maximum fun. very good post, OP. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote: I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. I think that partly he got banned to make a statement that we do not want more "mbs" threads and instead wants this thread to be about the good points the OP made. If you read the forum rules any discussion on the mbs subject is forbidden so it was more than just because it was a negative comment, that comment could have ruined the whole thread due to how volatile the whole discussion is. And if you look even now the discussion is brewing and I hope that everyone who even tries to discuss this stops right now because it will never lead anywhere. The op might not be correct on that point in your opinion but please for everyone's sake ignore it, read the post as if those line did not exist. | ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
| ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
The C&C example isn't fun for several reasons. One is that the players are displaying a repetitive and potentially mundane skill. | ||
|
xhuwin
United States476 Posts
On January 24 2009 00:12 Amber[LighT] wrote: But you cannot qualify this as 'mindless babysitting'. This is what forces you to quickly move from different tasks. To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time. It's what makes the game competitive because of the ability for some to babysit better than others, if you want to refer to macro as babysitting. I do think that macro is in many times mindless, but it is still beneficial. Just because something is mindless doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Doing 100 math problems that your teacher assigned is mindless, but it IS beneficial (you don't get a 0 for homework). This may just be a semantic point, as I agree that it makes the game competitive because some can babysit (multitask) better than others, but it's important to realize that for a multitask-dependant game like starcraft, all components (micro, macro) of a player's actions must be put into context. On January 24 2009 00:52 Phrujbaz wrote: imo it's mindless enough, but the fun thing is not that task in isolation but having to multitask it. I think Phrujbaz got it. Macro is mindless as in when you remember to go back, click d click d click d click d on every gateway is not hard. But the challenge (and the fun) is doing it quickly and multitasking effectively, while in combat, or while doing a storm drop, or transferring workers to dodge a reaver drop. | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
| ||
|
Amarxist
United States371 Posts
When you think about it, there's game, yes a game, a game just like Starcraft. With a rich history dating to 500 years past, and even further then that. They call it the King's Game, it requires no physical dexterity what-so-ever (a paralyzed man could play this game). It is and it's players have been revered throughout the world for their prowess in it. What game is it? Chess It's a strategy game just like Starcraft, although it's turn based rather then real time. But for those who say that a game would lack depth, challenge, longevity, competitiveness and whatever else. Do you really think that's true? Chess has been around for 500 years and much longer then that through it's predecessors. It's a pure mind game, no physical prowess required to execute even the most adept moves. I understand that Chess may not be the game for some people, but don't downplay another game for not being the game YOU want it to be. | ||
|
Phrujbaz
Netherlands512 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On January 24 2009 05:10 Phrujbaz wrote: substitute "chess" for "go" and you have a decent point Go is harder for computers but if it is actually harder for humans is debatable. | ||
|
Phrujbaz
Netherlands512 Posts
| ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
No, chess= 100% mindgame. Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc. It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar. And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo. Also, sc2 will probably still be "hard" and still has some of the physical aspect. But why play it when there is a lot better game around? From what i have seen i like SC more. These things i don't like about sC2: -3d graphics (not really all that important but i like 2d more). - MBS, automine, infinite unit selection, autocast, uber unit AI. (more like the fact they made it easier.) *Also the fact that they easified it by making macro too easy, and then adding stupid shit like the gas mechaninc and that dark pylon stuff. - The fact that it will be "complete" only after like 4years(the expansions and patching). Now some of you might think its fine but i don't. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
As for progamers having fun, I'm note sure they do have fun the way a casual would, but they very much are passionate about it. They never would have become without loving it and having fun at some point. There must be something more than money and fame that brings them back into the game after hours and hours of practice. The main thing about this thread is to stop the community split somewhat in showing that Starcraft succeeded because factors other than "zomg it is so hard" so hopefully people would not evaluate ideas using the "does it make the game harder" rule. The skill ceiling is very much a myth created by unimaginative players that can not imagine any skill outside the one they have already. Even for a strategically degenerate game like RPS (rock paper scissors) could run a tournament where skill exists (due to non-ideal random number generation by humans or seeded programs) shows that strategy and skill exists as long as a human is the opponent and the game have even one element of randomness and complexity. If a game only have a circular build order counter (bo1>bo2>bo3>bo1), the game can be unboundedly skillful in the metagame, where competitive players would spend all their time computing Bo probability. ============================================== Thematic considerations in more detail: This is rather disorganized since it is my thoughts of the moment, so sorry about that. Aside from poor balance, the main problem with many games is that the required skill is different from the nominal task at hand and this creates a split in the community of those who wants to play how the game feels and those that wants to play the mechanics. Let me tell you what different players wants to do. The casual player thinks he is the commander and wants to do commander like thing, like controlling his large army, flanking opponents and fight, things traditionally related to that of a field commander. The mechanics, "hardcore" player would do whatever the games requires him to do to win. If the game works like how its marketed, and you if "win" mechanically by being good at doing commander-like things, than there is no split in the community. If there is strange tasks that doesn't feel quite right, like having to go back to base every 20 seconds to move a worker, than the casual folks would be annoyed and the player base would be split. If it is at all possible, it would be best if EVERYTHING in the game is built out of intuitive and thematic concepts. The game maker are suppose to build a game that fits the player base's ideas and biases about what he should do, as opposed force a new set on him. ----- I remember ages ago when Starcraft was still in alpha and there was talk about Terrans being able to salvage wrecks for resources (zomg macro mechanics!) the discussion that took place in the casual circle. My group had people that constantly whined about the stupidity of RTS units and how they should throw strong AI into them so they'd do smart thing so they feel like they are commanding a real army as opposed to dumb lego blocks. Over the years I've heard this line pop up over and over. Well, modern stabs at this have shown this to be rather mistaken, since "intelligent" units means units that do their own thing and ignore what the commander wants them to do. Real human beings get into traffic jams and cause friendly fire all the same, and annoy their superiors all the time. From that experience, I learned what it is really about. They want games to give them the control to play out their fantasy of how things is suppose to be, mechanics be damned. These players are not "anti-competitive" since they very much have the desire to win within their own domain of often unspoken rules. They just refuse to see the game as mechanics. And I don't think they are so wrong. There is a reason why most games have a theme and "mathematical games" don't get played as much. Why not replace the marine with a blue box and the seige tank with a yellow one? Why name it starcraft rather than mathcraft where all terrain is reduced to 3 different colors (to reflect 3 levels) as opposed to the complex texture we have now? Why have a back story, a campaign, intricately designed units, and all that? If Starcraft is merely its mechanics, than none of those things matter. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
On January 24 2009 05:16 Klockan3 wrote: Go is harder for computers but if it is actually harder for humans is debatable. A game is always as hard as your opponent plus luck. There is not much luck in go, therefore it is as hard as the person across the table. People are scared that the game will no longer be fun, because the game is too easy, and doesn't provide this. It is easy to make the game harder, even if by a afterthought patch. Making it challenging in the right way is the difficult part. Mindlessly promoting "hard" things is not the right way to go, as balance is important. | ||
|
Amarxist
United States371 Posts
On January 24 2009 05:51 MuR)Ernu wrote: Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right? No, chess= 100% mindgame. Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc. It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar. And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo. Also, sc2 will probably still be "hard" and still has some of the physical aspect. But why play it when there is a lot better game around? From what i have seen i like SC more. These things i don't like about sC2: -3d graphics (not really all that important but i like 2d more). - MBS, automine, infinite unit selection, autocast, uber unit AI. (more like the fact they made it easier.) *Also the fact that they easified it by making macro too easy, and then adding stupid shit like the gas mechaninc and that dark pylon stuff. - The fact that it will be "complete" only after like 4years(the expansions and patching). Now some of you might think its fine but i don't. I merely stated that a game does not require physical aspect to be rewarding, fun, challenging, competitive and have longevity. That is a entirely a personal preference, and it doesn't make a game--less of a game that has that physical aspect. That is just your opinion. I compared the two because both are strategy games. | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
Starcraft is interesting because nobody is perfect. Everyone has their weaknesses and strenghts, both strategically and mechanically. There is always something to improve. IMO a succesful game needs to be simple, but deep. Think about it, the ruless of chess or Go are pretty simple, yet the games are very VERY deep. Same goes for starcraft too. anyone should be able to pick it up quickly. And the basics are pretty simple right? Get a good economy and make units and fight. And add the physical aspect to it, and the fact that you have to divide your time between micro and macro makes it interesting. Also imo an RTS needs a physical aspect, if not for that, what would be the point of it being realtime? Turn based strategygames (which include chess and go) are the deep ones, where you have to think very carefully, and usually you have a long time to think. RTS games are more about split-second decisions and that kind of stuff. Probably the reason why people are passionate about this game is that there is always something to improve, and when you play against an opponent, its his skill versus your skill. And there is also the fact that there are so many styles, i mean think of it, there are 3 races which are completely different, but balanced. So there are 3 "archetypes" of players and their skill and styles are diverse. It's like a Mixed martial arts tournament, different people with different styles fight with each other. And also there's the thing that its just fun to play it. I would like to see some psychological study of why people get so passionate about sports (and other competitive thingys). | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
If the game works like how its marketed, and you if "win" mechanically by being good at doing commander-like things, than there is no split in the community. If there is strange tasks that doesn't feel quite right, like having to go back to base every 20 seconds to move a worker, than the casual folks would be annoyed and the player base would be split. If it is at all possible, it would be best if EVERYTHING in the game is built out of intuitive and thematic concepts. The game maker are suppose to build a game that fits the player base's ideas and biases about what he should do, as opposed force a new set on him. That's why nobody likes Starcraft yah. The skill ceiling is very much a myth created by unimaginative players that can not imagine any skill outside the one they have already. Even for a strategically degenerate game like RPS (rock paper scissors) could run a tournament where skill exists (due to non-ideal random number generation by humans or seeded programs) shows that strategy and skill exists as long as a human is the opponent and the game have even one element of randomness and complexity. If a game only have a circular build order counter (bo1>bo2>bo3>bo1), the game can be unboundedly skillful in the metagame, where competitive players would spend all their time computing Bo probability. Well a great deal of players like me don't care about any form of skill other than physical. It's just the most interesting to us. For example, when I took martial arts, I never cared to learn technique application, when to do what etc. I just wanted to practice roundhouse kicks on a heavy bag over and over and over again until it was as damaging as a kick from the really big guy in class. I could care less if it was time to clinch or time to elbow or knee, I enjoyed pwning opponents with superior mechanics. In much the same way, I can have just as much fun practicing macro on my own and doing mock micro or whatever without even needing an opponent. There's just something extremely enjoyable to me about muscle memory, whether it's about worker building every ten seconds, proper MA technical ability, throwing a ball through a hoop, hitting a ball with a bat, spinning a ping pong ball, or any other similar task. It's just what I enjoy seeing as the primary skill factor involved. I like to think of strategy as a tie breaker between two equally skilled players. I don't see strategy as a skill in itself. As for the Chess comment, I liken Chess to a SC match where both players are equally skilled, and thus have to use strategy to see who wins. With that said there is no harm for someone like me to learn Chess. I just have a problem with people with inferior mechanics beating someone just because of their tactics (cheese?). And since Chess has no mechanics it's fair game. But to change a video game, something that has by tradition always required muscle memory, to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder is a huge slap in the face to the guy who actually trains his hands on the keyboard. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
PiGStarcraft219
GSL Code S
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
