EPTI remembered in WCG2001 CQ2000 defeated him on BW,but in WCG 2003 he defeated CQ2000 on war3
What Mr.X aka Insomnia has to say about BW and WC3 - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SpringWind
China231 Posts
I remembered in WCG2001 CQ2000 defeated him on BW,but in WCG 2003 he defeated CQ2000 on war3 | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On February 08 2004 23:36 HeMaN wrote: Hahaha... Imagine a bunch of CS players made a thread and started discussing CS vs BW, how BW doesn't need any strategy and how much CS is a better game in everyway. You would probably laugh at their ignorance and not bother replying, because they would never understand anyway, right? This thread is almost similar, but this time im going to give it a try ^_^. I haven't read most of the posts, its just too much, I just checked what the discussion is mainly about. Sorry for that. First of all, you guys should stop concentrating on inso's answer. I've discussed the endless WC3 vs BW topic with many top/ex BW players, including inso in the past. I agree, he didn't really express himself in the best way. The answer could be misunderstood. But trust me, he got many more arguments on why he thinks WC3 is a better game, and just for the record he still enjoys (at least watching) BW. Just face it, people have different taste, some like BW better, others prefer WC3. I obviously like WC3 better, but at the same time I really enjoy watching and playing BW. Stop being so aggressive, no one forces you to play WC3. Other then that, if you want discuss balance in a game, you should know what you talk about *cough*intotherei*cough* Like someone pointed out, knights and destroyers serves a purpose. Destroyers are fucking good. Mass destroyers against Human is extremely powerful. I don't really get it, what makes dest and breakers bad anti casters? Most of the units in WC3 are really good if you know how to use them. The Bond vs whoever replay was funny, but you can't judge from only one replay. Fairy dragons are good against casters, but as for example human you can micro and kill them without taking any damage, you have to hit n run. A spontaneous example is comparing M&M against lurkers. Just like lurkers, fairys can't move while in manaflare mode, thus you can just keep your casters out of range and focus fire on the fairys with riflemans, they got very low hitpoints. If he moves the fairys or comes running with his army outside the fairys range, you got a nice opportunity to manually slow half his army, get in a clap and bolt and then move back, then just repeat. And just like lurkers vs marines, if he gets into your base unnoticed and burrows, it can be devastating, just like the 4k.bond replay showed. ok before anyone replies in this thread he must have read Heman's post  | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Sorry, but I thought the whole point of the topic (as the title of it suggests) WAS Inso's answer. It's true that the topic has strayed and it has come to include ye olde WC3 vs BW argument again, but SOME of the people in this thread were still discussing what Inso said in the interview. I understand that we shouldn't tear him apart over one interview in which he may not have communicated what he really thought very well, but, again, we were discussing what he said and the validity of it (whether he really meant it or not). I don't think Inso/Mr.X is an idiot or has no respect for BW, but I did think his comments were "interesting" and obviously other people wanted to talk about whether what he said had any truth to it or not. Heman's post is a good one in terms of arguing why there should be no debates about WC3 vs BW in terms of worth as games (as it is a matter of taste), but it really doesn't say anything about Inso/Mr.X's quoted comments about how WC3 was the "obvious" choice as a better game, BW is impossible to play at it's best and so is inferior, WC3 is "much more advanced in every way", and how there's "no question" which is better (the very reason this thread began and the point of what I was discussing). Argue all you want about whether he meant it, was misquoted, failed to back up his arguments because he just didn't want to, etc., but discussing whether the statements quoted are valid or not has no bearing on whether we think WC3 is a worthwhile game or not. If anything, Inso/Mr.X's quoted statements from the interview go totally against what Heman's posts says in that he argues that there is no comparison in that WC3 is just so much better than BW in every way. If someone who the community respected and thought was well-informed about the strengths of the two games makes statements like that in a public interview, it's bound to raise some eyebrows and spark some conversations. This thread may have strayed, had lots of stupid posts, and jumped all over the place, but the topic itself remains a valid one to debate. | ||
|
analogkensho
United States358 Posts
Game design is a skill just like anything else. I mean, look at cooking: let's compare a hamburger and a steak - the steak is made of objectively better material. Prepared with equal skill you may *enjoy* the hamburger more, but it would be most objective to admit the steak is the "better" meal. Now if on the other hand the steak is prepared with less skill the hamburger may be objectively better, right? This can't be purely an issue of material, the same way we can't say war3 is better simply because it's newer (more advanced code). Mr. X seemingly made a blanket statement that *everything* about War3 is superior, with few of his reasons for thinking so. This is problematic. One of the defences I often hear for War3 is that it may seem like strats are limited at low skill levels, but at high levels it is really very deep. Well, I'm low skill at both BW and War3, and I appreciate the fact that I can admire the depth of BW even from my noobish position, whereas War3 seems stale and repetative. I'm not saying it is for everyone, that's just my experience, but isn't it a 'design' weakness if a game is unappealing to newcomers? Doesn't this indicate a fundamental flaw? Seems to me any game design should focus on being very approachable and inviting to newcomers, otherwise you have limited community growth. It's not like I don't like the game, I'm actively *trying* to appreciate it more, as I find the community interesting. But I can't find the depth to it no matter how much I try different strats and different game types. I respect people's desire to have a more micro-intense gameplay experience, but I have to question the balance of the action in War3 from a design perspective. In visual art you learn very early that an area of black will only appear truly intense if it's contrasted against an area of bright white. So to all the people who say War3 is such an intense battle of micro skills, where is the contrast? BW has macro, the chess-like positional battle of TvT and TvPs, air maps, feints, weird-ass gimick strats (Archon/Arbiter vs terran = crazy mad fun to watch) and such. I don't see what War3 has to offer in this area, and I'm wondering if I'm just missing something. I'm honestly curious to hear more about why people think clicking on units is more interesting than clicking on buildings. Doesn't register for me. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
| ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
and is war3 really only uneappealing to newcomers? it seems like plenty of people won almost all of their games all the way up to 200, 300 games, and then QUIT. so the advanced players remaining say the game is good when you get there, but what about all the players better than them who quit citing war3's overall crappiness (various differences from bw)? maybe the good war3 players ilke war3 because they're the only ones left. how can a game be unappealing to newcomers if the newcomer dominates most of the games they play and quits out of boredom? not to mention how many people left war3 in the beta and came back to find the problems they thought would go away never did. and yeah, tft is probably a big fix over the war3 i'm talking about, but you have to ask yourself, not is it better than war3, but is it worth playing now? | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
Being someone who has successfully played both games, it's easy to see where the differences lie. To iterate: BW & TFT are both RTS games. There are actually people who claim Total Annihilation is better than BW. There are people who claim that (insert game here) is the best. The reason why these two games are compared so often is because they're both Blizzard games, and BW players expected Warcraft III to be Starcraft II. Disappointed, they went on to find reasons why the game was so terrible. The general trend seems to be that Warcraft III is "simplistic," or even, "overly simplified." Blizzard themselves have iterated over and over again that they don't want the game to cater to players at a high skill level. They say things like "heros should be scary," instead of "let's make things balanced." War3 is a game that a young teenager can play on and off and be decent at. It's far more user-friendly. That's what Blizzard wanted it to be. They wanted anyone to be able to play and feel that they're decent. They wanted the most skilled players (smallest percentage of gamers), who would play the game no matter what, to be brought down pegs by gamers who are not of the same skill level. BW is the complete opposite. If you're highly skilled at BW, the chances of you losing to someone who is rungs below you is not very high. In War3 skill levels are far more ambivalent. The top players can lose to weaker players who got lucky item drops, &c. The main reason War3 is silly, is because it is so random and ambivalent. The people on this board are NOT THE PEOPLE BLIZZARD CATERS TO. They cater to people who will buy the game and use their service a little (driving down their costs), and who don't whine to them to fix the game (driving down their costs), and who think the game is great and will buy more (driving up their profits). So if a newbie can log on a couple hours a week and win, they'll enjoy their time and purchase more Blizzard games. People who post on boards or talk about micro of APM or anything like that (or even complain about balance issues, &c.) are not the people Blizzard cares about. Why do you think they're releasing an MMORPG? MMORPGs are what allowed the commonplace computer idiot to play games and feel like they're good at them. Then they get sucked in and waste even more money. Warcraft III is NOT COMPLEX. Why would Blizzard even attempt to make it more complex, when they know that complexity is not what's going to make them money? Do you think as many people buy Steel Panthers? Most of the people who buy the game only play single-player. That's what Blizzard designed the game for. Do you think they want to waste money hosting free online services? (Read: Yet another reason why they are making an MMORPG). This being said, claiming that The Frozen Throne is more complex than Brood War are unfounded. Occam's Razor... Blizzard is a company. They want to make money. More money is spent on simple games than complex ones. The mechanics behind the game also prove that point. When Warcraft III was released, a high level player could win just using heros. Now, of course, changes have been put in place to stop this, but the game is still entirely based on heros. Move hero back when he's getting damaged, cast hero spell, &c. Do you know why the Beastmaster is still so abusive? Because they didn't do anything to fix it. Do you know why? "Bears need to be scary." If you can go 127-0 using the same abusive strategy, there's something wrong with the game. The innate flaw in the game is the heros. You can't balance a game so ridiculously diverse as TFT (due to heros and Blizzard's stupidity), whereas BW has become far more balanced since its release. There are only three valid strategies for winning at a high level of TFT, and one of those is only valid if the Undead player is at a far superior skill level to his opponent. The other only works in certain cases where the opponent is a short distance away. TFT = Build hero, learn how to move hero back when he's under attack, learn how to focus fire. The game is far more forgiving with errors. Even an idiot can have a good start, and even an idiot can have a good economy. The units have far more HP and die far slower. You can make huge mistakes and still win. You get random items that can sometimes dictate who wins and who loses. Blizzard refuses to balance the game. BW = You must play flawlessly to beat people of the same skill level. Errors are not easily forgiven. Units have lower HP and die much quicker. Gameplay is faster. Superior balancing. --- So which game is better? It depends on your opinion. Which game takes more skill to play? Definitely BW, without a doubt. If you disagree, then you're not looking at any facts whatsoever. Warcraft III isn't even as micro-intensive as BW. All you do is move units that are getting damaged back. It promotes not attacking your opponent. The viable quantity of strategies are far lower than those of Brood War. | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
Nobody knows shit about War3 right now just as nobody knew shit about BW when it was at the age War3 is now. It's rediculous for anyone to pretend they know anything about the game other than what has worked for them via experience. The logic accompanying many of the posts here isn't quite adding up, and the main reason I can see for that, is quite frankly, there's only been about 4 or 5 people including myself in this thread who have played War3 enough to have any idea of what it's all about. The only thing you people should be concerned with, is how to play BW and get the skill or entertainment you desire. It's obvious many of you don't care about War3, yet so many of you comment on it as if you know all about it. Highly unlikely with the contempt many of you hold for it. As far as Insomnia's comments go, I think we've established all the possibilities of the scenario, and with that said, this thread no longer serves it's original purpose. If the rest of you wanna argue War3, go play the game for a couple months and make a new thread. It's tiresome to even read this anymore. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On February 08 2004 22:01 mindspike wrote: care to link some? oh and ive seen many pro games where ud MASS destroyers | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On February 09 2004 02:35 mindspike wrote: im not talking out of my ass, nor do i know more than heman about wc3. =]so intotherei...i guess you know more than HeMaN ? or maybe you're just talking out of your ass | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
You clearly don't know anything about the game whatsoever, as I was not belittling W3 in any way, shape or form. In fact, I'd rather play it than BW. The fact of the matter is, it is simplified. Any top player agrees with my perspective. So does the Blizzard staff. You obviously didn't read my post (are you capable of reading a post? Perhaps you should before attempting to make patently false claims regarding everything). As for the game being made competitive by the players - Where did I talk about it? Any game can be competitive. I said that W3 was intended for the casual gamer, those gamers who felt that it was "too hard" to be "good" at BW. If you disagree, you are wrong, because Blizzard has clearly stated their intentions numerous times. | ||
| ||
