|
Hey all!
I thought I might write a little bit about the "noob friendly" interface of StarCraft 2 (rallying workers to minerals, unlimited selection of units, selecting more than one building and casting spells while having several casters selected etc.) because a lot of you think that this is, for some reason, a bad idea. But I strongly believe that an improved interface is not a bad thing.
I personally think StarCraft is a great game. But I do not really like playing it because of the interface. So what do I not like about it? Among other things: it's just frustrating not being able to do what one wants. I appreciate the need for a lot of things that "takes skill". The more things that can separate the good players from the bad the better; but not always.
If the things that separate the good players from the bad are things that are boring, then it's not helping the game. For example: Chess is (probably; since I'm not good at it I can not really tell) a pretty good game. But one could add additional elements to the game that makes it take more skill. Imagine that in Chess, after every move you make, you have to juggle five balls in the air for ten seconds (thanks Sirlin), otherwise your move doesn't count. That would make the game "harder" and "take more skill". But is it something that would be good? It most certainly would not. Why? Because first of all juggling is not as fun as playing a strategy game (of course some may argue with that, but I think most of you agree, more on that later). And second the juggling part of this new Chess is out of place; players who want to play Chess do most likely not want to have to juggle the balls. So, even if something makes the game "take more skill" it is not always a good thing.
This is the essence of making a better interface in SC2. The macro part of SC:BW is not really fun. Just clicking a lot of buildings (because you can not select many) etc. and "fighting the interface" is like juggling in the above example. It takes skill, but it's a boring skill. So, why is it boring? There is really no interaction with the opponent. You just have to do it. Micro and strategy, on the other hand, depends on what your opponent is doing. Every battle is like a mini strategy game. You have to get inside the mind of your opponent, and counter his moves. This kind of thing is much more fun than just clicking your buildings.
Of course when I say that it is more fun, I'm just expressing my own opinion. But I think most of you actually agree with me on this. Otherwise, you would not be playing SC in the first place. SC is a game of strategy. You have to get into the mind of the opponent, and come up with counters to what he is doing right now. There is no best strategy all the time. The fact that you like SC shows that you like this kind of strategy and mind games more than juggling. There are all kinds of games that focus on dexterity that you could play instead, but you chose SC.
One of the most popular arguments against an improved interface is that it makes the game require less skill. And that the gap between pro gamers and others will narrow. I'm not convinced by this argument, because there will always be things that the player can do instead of fighting the interface. For example micro even better, attack on multiple fronts etc. No one has ever played a perfect game of SC, and no one will ever play a perfect game of SC2. There will always be lots of things that could be done even better.
There are some other arguments against the noob friendly interface. And I'm going to respond to some of them now.
1. "If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed."
The first part of this argument is valid. The skill of prioritizing is real. I can even agree on that there is a little bit of a mind game and strategy involved. But I don't think that it makes up for the boring part after you have decided that you must focus on macro: fighting the interface. And this prioritizing skill is not lost if the game has a better interface. Players will still have to make decisions about what to focus on. For example if fighting multiple battles or even one non-trivial battle.
The second part of the argument is not really an argument at all. It's just an opinion. But nevertheless, I'm somewhat against it. Why shouldn't computer games try to eliminate the dexterity required? I think it would be wonderful, for the reasons stated above. And why should there be some arbitrary difference between board games and computer games? It's true that the actual moving of the pieces in Risk or Chess doesn't take much skill, but the thought behind the moves does. If you think that Chess is somehow too simple then try to beat a grand master.
Another thing about board games: Not many people play board games. Most people think that they are boring. But it's not for this reason (no dexterity required). I believe the reason why many people think they are boring is because they simply are less intense, not being real-time games, among other reasons. The gameplay of Risk, for example, is not that good in the first place.
2. "All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced."
This is all true. It would be pretty silly to somehow remove the physical skill in Tennis. But it's Tennis, not StarCraft. If the physical skill is removed from Tennis not a whole lot would be left. If dexterity, in some way, was removed from StarCraft on the other hand, the things left that require skill are still abundant.
3. "Other RTS's have been going that [noob friendly] direction and their games hold interest for less than a year."
I don't know what games you are talking about. But it's not the noob friendliness that makes them bad, it's the balance and gameplay.
4. "Massive groups of unlimited or even over 20 units is a pretty bad idea. It takes away from a lot of micro aspects."
This argument is true in a way. But micro is really about two things. Dexterity and knowing what to do. And as you probably guessed by now, I'm not a big fan of dexterity. But nevertheless, SC2, with the interface improvements, will still require dexterity. And players will not be able to micro properly with all of their units in one big group anyway.
5. "From personal talks with many of the best Warcraft 3 players they complain that many of their players can take a year off, not practice, come back and get 1st or 2nd in a prestigious tournament.
Even if that really is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it. If the player is really good and can pull it off, then he deserves to win. It's still a game of skill and there is nothing to complain about. Unless of course they can win because of imbalance or something like that. But that's something else.
6. "Starcraft 2 is making it easier to decrease skill gaps between players. Which is a bad thing. Because you do not respect the players as much, there is less to do, and the game becomes much less intense, thus less fun."
As discussed above, I think there will always be plenty of things to do. Just less boring things.
7. "All professional gamers I have talked to agree that you shouldn't be able to take months off practice then win a prestigious tournament with all the best players nor place 2nd in it. With the simplifying of SC into SC2, thus far it feels like this is what they are doing."
If I were a pro gamer, I would not have any problem with someone taking months off and then still win. If I were the one beaten it would be a little embarrassing. But I don't think this will be a real issue in SC2 because, as I have said earlier, it will still require dexterity etc.
What I would find frustrating though is if I would be forced to take a few months off and lose much of my skill (happens even if one is not a pro). That is a bigger problem in my opinion.
8. "RTS should have a mix of many characteristics. If someone's going to bullshit and say it should be all about strategy, and lower skilled people should be able to keep up and nearly be able to macro like Reach by pressing 4z on 10 gateways... then they might as well make it a turn based game."
It's not just the fingers that have a hard time performing. The mind is also pressed for time. And again, SC2 is going to require dexterity.
9. "Games should be difficult and take skill. It should take speed, strategy, timing, economy management, game control, etc... and many other factors that make the game great and intense. SC2 still takes skill, but it's not nearly as difficult or intense as playing SC. Thus, comes off as less fun in general."
If it truly is less intense and less difficult for the fingers, I would be very happy. But I don't believe it until I see it for myself.
10. "As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select."
Golf is not StarCraft. (This might be the worst argument I've heard so far.)
11. "Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobified the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general consensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it."
I don't like WC3. But it's because of the gameplay, with the heroes and all, not that the interface is more noob friendly. Even if you want a less "noob friendly" interface, you have to admit that it is the gameplay that sets the games apart in this case, not the interface.
12. "Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to achieve even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW."
But even the very best players, after 10 years, can not do all the things they would like to do. So there is absolutely no need for this extra potential for skill.
Another thing I would like to point out at this point is that the people at TL.net are obviously biased. People like me who doesn't like that there is a big dexterity requirement has left SC for other games. Even if StarCraft is very popular, maybe it would have been even more popular if the interface would have been better. I know I certainly would have liked it more.
Poll: What do you think about the interface improvements?
(Vote): Good
(Vote): Bad
(Vote): Not sure
|
So basically what you're saying is
You're alienated by the amount of dexterity it takes to play starcraft effectively
and thus starcraft 2 should not have as much dexterity involved.
Doesn't that make this entirely opinion? I mean, if you say there doesn't have to be any difference between board games and computer games, then you imply that you simply want this to be a mind game, winner determined by decisions in strategy. Many people don't. Saying tl.net is biased is true, yes, many of us are more inclined toward keeping the dexterity. I don't get what's wrong with that, though. Computer games have variety, one of the features that made starcraft unique was the dexterity involved. You want to take that away, based on your opinion of what a perfect computer game would be.
All you're doing is regurgitating the opinions of the people that want starcraft 2 to require less dexterity to play. And all you're going to get out of this thread is people regurgitating their opinions wanting to keep as much dexterity in.
|
Here ill keep it simple, removing the dexterity that it takes to play SC is bad for RTS. Doesnt one ever think that there is a reason for SC being the greatest RTS ever created?
|
um given the fact that three extremely similar topics have been spawned recently, maybe it'd be better to have posted this is another mbs thread instead of starting your own. You can repost this and if it was closed it'd be better.
|
SpiritoftheTuna,
Maybe, but I wanted to defend the interface improvments because to me it looked as if there had been many threads about how the changes to the interface are bad. And I had not seen many or good arguments for it. Maybe I missed them. Also, other threads just focused on some particular change.
I wanted to start this, a little more philosophical, discussion about games in general. Maybe I could have posted this as a reply to another thread. But I felt that it was dissimilar to a degree that merited a new thread. Sorry if you feel differently.
|
Look at all that text i didnt read.
|
It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game.
|
I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
On September 09 2007 12:46 Superiorwolf wrote:
It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game.
Thanks!
But, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
"Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game..."
Yes, and there are many aspects besides dexterity...
But I don't understand the rest. "...no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example". Huh?
|
On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote:
I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them.
Also, you might not consider it broken, but I do.
|
On September 09 2007 12:57 tufflax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 12:46 Superiorwolf wrote:
It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game. Thanks! But, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. "Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game..." Yes, and there are many aspects besides dexterity... But I don't understand the rest. "...no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example". Huh?
What I'm trying to say is that if dexterity is removed, then applying the knowledge that you know becomes way too easy. Say if you see them doing a certain build, and then you know the counter to that build. You can execute it perfectly if there is no dexterity involved. For example, vultures SHOULD suck versus dragoons, but if you can lay mines very well, then you can kill them. However, if there is NO dexterity, then vultures will always win, or they will be nerfed and dragoons will always win. There aren't exact counters sometimes, it just depends on how well you can execute the strategy, so if there is no dexterity then there are exact counters and it ruins the game because there is no point in playing if everything is easy to do.
If they go marines, then if you get lurkers you have to still micro to beat the marines. If it is easy to do, then it's gg right there, which ruins the game.
|
On September 09 2007 13:02 tufflax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote:
I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them. Also, you might not consider it broken, but I do.
How can you arbitrarily make that decision, when all evidence points towards the opposite?
|
Its more than "dexterity" as you put it, what you think is dexterous may be easy for someone else who uses their brain. Your trying to make a broad statement about the skill it takes to play starcraft.
|
Osaka27154 Posts
When I was at Blizzcon playing SC2, I was very happy with the MBS and automining. It allowed me to do more of the things I always think about in SC, but am unable to do because of my slow hands.
I do not think the MBS and automining remove too much of the skill from the game. For the gross majority of players, playing at high speeds is not an option. Taking away some of the dexterity requirements will help make people better players.
However, the game still rewards those with quick hands, and it always will. These features simply raise the bottom level players up a bit, it does not push down the best players. I think having a game where the noobs, by far the majority, can be slightly more skilled is good for the game. It keeps them active for a longer period of time.
|
On September 09 2007 12:34 HunterGatherer wrote:
Here ill keep it simple, removing the dexterity that it takes to play SC is bad for RTS. Doesnt one ever think that there is a reason for SC being the greatest RTS ever created?
There are many reasons, but the outdated interface is not one of them.
|
On September 09 2007 13:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if dexterity is removed, then applying the knowledge that you know becomes way too easy. Say if you see them doing a certain build, and then you know the counter to that build. You can execute it perfectly if there is no dexterity involved. For example, vultures SHOULD suck versus dragoons, but if you can lay mines very well, then you can kill them. However, if there is NO dexterity, then vultures will always win, or they will be nerfed and dragoons will always win. There aren't exact counters sometimes, it just depends on how well you can execute the strategy, so if there is no dexterity then there are exact counters and it ruins the game because there is no point in playing if everything is easy to do.
If they go marines, then if you get lurkers you have to still micro to beat the marines. If it is easy to do, then it's gg right there, which ruins the game.
Ah yes, good point! But, the interface improvments take away some of the (imo) boring stuff, like having to click on all your gateways, or ordering your newly built workers to gather minerals, etc.
And also, I'm not SURE about the scenario that you are describing. That vultures would win every time against dragoons. Because it depends on the position of the units, what other units the players have, etc. It's kind of like in chess; the Queen is the "best" unit, but she can still be killed by other, "weaker" units, depending on the situation. Not a very good comparison, I know. But, you get my point, I hope. You know, how come Chess can be pretty "deep" and strategic even if it requires no dexterity. I'm just not sure... but good point. 
|
On September 09 2007 13:03 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 13:02 tufflax wrote:On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote:
I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them. Also, you might not consider it broken, but I do. How can you arbitrarily make that decision, when all evidence points towards the opposite?
What decision?
|
SC is a economy based macro game. Micro is very spectacular, but its true impact to the game must be measured against the macro foundations : how much you increase the cost-effectiveness of the unit, and as well as how much hurt you did to your opponents multitasking relative to the attention you spent on it yourself.
I'm afraid if you don't realize this, we can't even have a decent discussion, because you are just basically thrashing the competitive community and what we built up. You don't realize how important those 'boring parts' are to the overall game, EVEN WHEN your watching the spectacular moments, they are really only impressive because of these 'boring parts'.
Plus some of us are just prefer to be banana-eating, macro loving, gorilla monsters. We find it fun. Live with it.
|
On September 09 2007 13:03 HunterGatherer wrote:
Its more than "dexterity" as you put it, what you think is dexterous may be easy for someone else who uses their brain. Your trying to make a broad statement about the skill it takes to play starcraft.
Yes, I admit, if two people with the same "dexterity", one who has played SC and one not having played it, played the game, it would look as if the one who has played SC before have more dexterity.
But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
|
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote:
But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
