|
France2061 Posts
Aside from an occasional look at the previews and various news reports I never really read the SC2 forums before the beta came out, so maybe this was always present, but goddamn if I haven't picked up on an increasingly annoying buzzword, "tension."
Now, "metagame" is annoying because it's constantly being thrown around incorrectly, to the point where I'd say that 90% of the times it's used, it simply means the current dominant strategies, which is only a small part of what metagame actually means. The word, as has been explained before, covers a lot of ground, from strategies, to mind games to playing the opponent etc., and so having the term "metagame" to describe all these overlapping yet different things in one quick word was very useful.
Having the term "metagame" simply mean the current dominant strategies -- three words, and you could even boil it down to just "current strategies" -- is a waste of vocabulary. But at least, even when used incorrectly, metagame should be taken at face value -- it isn't a loaded word, it's just being thrown around a lot and I guess it makes things look deeper than they really are ("It's the metagame, man!" I could picture a totally stoned hippie saying this while waving his hands in my face; deep man, deep).
That brings us to "tension". A dictionary tells us it means "the interplay of conflicting elements." With regard to SC2, the word is generally used to describe the conflicting options available off of one energy/mana pool. MULE or scan. Inject larva or creep tumor. Chronoboost, but on what building? That's all well and good, but from that starting point the word tends to creep into everything and suddenly you're up against a fucking buzzword that's impossible to swat away from your face. Suddenly, every decision is analyzed in terms of the tension it provides, and more likely than not, everything is found lacking. Where's my tension, bro?
It used to be that macro was fairly straightforward, and mainly revolved around the player's ability to execute it properly. There was largely enough decision-making involved when it came to deciding when to expand, when to add production facilities -- the rest was all about remembering to execute your macro rounds, and doing so quickly and efficiently. But now, all the kids want tension. You can't just decide when to plop down your production buildings and start pumping that shit, you need to have some TENSION in your macro. And this is where the word goes from being an empty buzzword to a loaded one, contrary to "metagame".
Because all of sudden you start hearing or reading the argument that mechanics are secondary to this oh so desireable tension. Who needs macro when you've got TENSION baby? My mechanics will drip with tension! Implicitly, tension is being opposed to mechanical requirements, and the underlying argument seems to be that this fabulous tension can replace mechanical skill, while providing just as much challenge. Who cares about execution when you'll be sweating it with all the fucking TENSION involved in your decisions? Your asshole will be quivering. We don't need your stinking mechanics! That shit is so 1990s.
And that kind of rubs the wrong way, since there's no amount of tension that can provide as much challenge, or the same kind of challenge, as the mechanical skills required to macro (and those skills have been made easier in SC2 anyway), unless you turn the game into something turn-based like Civilization and such, where you can figure out the policies of your empire at your leisure. Increasing the amount of decision-making isn't a bad thing, but let's not take it to the point where every decision must somehow be super fucking tense, otherwise it's boring -- very often coupled with a complaint that something is sooo mechanically tiresome, just make it easier on the fingers and give me TENSION instead! It'll work out the same.
No it won't. The overuse of tension this and tension that and tension my ass until it's charred by the current is like the roundabout return of that old scrub desire to make things mechanically easier, so that they could properly execute all the awesome strategies that they had thought up, because they were strategic geniuses and if only things were easier, oh how they'd show you. And I say this as someone who was a bad SC1 player.
But instead of complaining about my misunderstood genius I worked on my execution like every other well-meaning newb; I didn't bide my time and jump on this put that there tension in my macro! bandwagon and invoke the buzzword like some mystical device that could actually compare or even compete with mechanics, when in fact this small-scale tension should be secondary to the overarching need to execute something properly.
Tension, why not. But not tension over mechanics, or tension instead of mechanics -- all pointless canards.
|
I agree that having tension--forcing "interesting decisions" is the way I like to think of it; decisions that do not have an easily clear correct choice--does not demand the same type of skill as the mechanical stuff in SC, but I disagree that it cannot be as challenging. We've not solved games like Go or chess, so I see no reason a priori to say that decision-making cannot be as challenging as mechanics. I don't see why either decision-making or mechanical demands in a game cannot be arbitrarily hard.
Some people don't want their strategy games (real-time or not) to have actions be harder to perform than strictly necessary--the game should be entirely about decision-making and facilitate that as much as possible. I'm (mostly) in that group. Other players think that part of an RTS is being able to perform the no-thinking tasks like sending your workers to minerals in BW, or spawning larva every 25 energy in SC2. There is no way to say which group is "right." You clearly fit in the second group and you don't seem to (unless I'm misreading your post) understand the first. There are of course people in the middle as well.
---
I find "metagame" far more over- and misused than "tension," and as such much more annoying of a term.
|
Nony has revolutionized the use of metagame. Now, under his definition, you can say:
"Wow dawg, I JUST GOT METAGAMED!"
or
"Holy shit that metagame he did to me was uber powerful!"
or
"Omg, he metagames with the best of em!"
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
A snowdrift blog! I will return to read this once I have finished this essay -__-
Looks promising 
|
On April 24 2010 02:12 avilo wrote:
Nony has revolutionized the use of metagame. Now, under his definition, you can say:
"Wow dawg, I JUST GOT METAGAMED!"
or
"Holy shit that metagame he did to me was uber powerful!"
or
"Omg, he metagames with the best of em!"
This post single handely saved this thread from boringness.
|
France2061 Posts
On April 24 2010 02:05 crate wrote:
Some people don't want their strategy games (real-time or not) to have actions be harder to perform than strictly necessary--the game should be entirely about decision-making and facilitate that as much as possible. I'm (mostly) in that group. Other players think that part of an RTS is being able to perform the no-thinking tasks like sending your workers to minerals in BW, or spawning larva every 25 energy in SC2. There is no way to say which group is "right." You clearly fit in the second group and you don't seem to (unless I'm misreading your post) understand the first. There are of course people in the middle as well.
But if you're playing a game in real time, you'll always be frustrated at one point or another by the pressure of time. You're basically playing in spite of the time constraint, and it seems odd that you would enjoy the game. Managing one's time has always been an essential element of Starcraft; dismissing it as an unecessary difficulty that should be alleviated as much as possible is missing out on a large part of what the game is about. The ideal games for someone purely interested in decision-making are turn-based strategy games, where mechanical skills are irrelevant.
|
Its much easier mechanically to execute something that requires less thinking in the process, compared to something that forces you to think and make tough choices constantly. So if you add TENSION you also make the game mechanics that much harder as well...
|
You can cut the TENSION in the thread with a knife.
But seriously, many words are used in incorrect ways so often that I don't mind when I hear METAGAME used incorrectly
|
On April 24 2010 05:18 snowdrift86 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 02:05 crate wrote:
Some people don't want their strategy games (real-time or not) to have actions be harder to perform than strictly necessary--the game should be entirely about decision-making and facilitate that as much as possible. I'm (mostly) in that group. Other players think that part of an RTS is being able to perform the no-thinking tasks like sending your workers to minerals in BW, or spawning larva every 25 energy in SC2. There is no way to say which group is "right." You clearly fit in the second group and you don't seem to (unless I'm misreading your post) understand the first. There are of course people in the middle as well. But if you're playing a game in real time, you'll always be frustrated at one point or another by the pressure of time. You're basically playing in spite of the time constraint, and it seems odd that you would enjoy the game. Managing one's time has always been an essential element of Starcraft; dismissing it as an unecessary difficulty that should be alleviated as much as possible is missing out on a large part of what the game is about. The ideal games for someone purely interested in decision-making are turn-based strategy games, where mechanical skills are irrelevant.
But it's not just decision-making I'm interested in; it's making the right decision quickly. You can't force your opponent to make multiple decisions within seconds in a TBS like you can in an RTS (say I go drop his main, attack his army, and expand nearly at the same time--he has to make decisions about all of that, and he has to do it fast). Yes, there are going to be mechanics involved--I'm fine with that. I just want all the mechanical requirements to come directly from making a decision. If I want to mine minerals with my workers, setting the rally on the minerals is making the decision. Further requiring (like in BW) that I tell the worker to mine has no decision involved. If I want to build 10 marines out of 10 barracks, I don't want to have to select my barracks one-by-one. If I want to move 60 zerglings, I don't want to have to select at least five separate groups of them to do it.
Having to tell my units where to go or to pull back or having to time my spells right and such is fine. Yes there's being "frustrated" by time pressure, but that's part of what I like about RTSs. I just don't like that time pressure to come from actions that could require two keypresses instead requiring ten.
BW is full of forced mechanical difficulty like this--I do indeed play BW despite the UI (which makes me want to punch my monitor) like you suggest. The thing is, BW is an absolutely amazing strategic game so I play it anyway. If you give me BW with smartcasting, MBS, automine, and infinite size selection groups--by far the four biggest improvements from BW to SC2 in my mind--I'd be drooling all over the game and wondering why anyone bothers playing SC2 beta.
SC2 so far does not seem as impressive or fun strategically, but it has far less forced mechanical difficulty.
|
By tension are people talking about cost/benefit? Because I thought that's what RTS were all about? Making correct cost/benefit decisions in realtime... Why suddenly change it to a buzzword like tension? Was this something stupid Blizzard employees came up with? SOrry, I haven't really been browsing the SC2 threads much.
|
France2061 Posts
On April 24 2010 07:01 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 05:18 snowdrift86 wrote:On April 24 2010 02:05 crate wrote:
Some people don't want their strategy games (real-time or not) to have actions be harder to perform than strictly necessary--the game should be entirely about decision-making and facilitate that as much as possible. I'm (mostly) in that group. Other players think that part of an RTS is being able to perform the no-thinking tasks like sending your workers to minerals in BW, or spawning larva every 25 energy in SC2. There is no way to say which group is "right." You clearly fit in the second group and you don't seem to (unless I'm misreading your post) understand the first. There are of course people in the middle as well. But if you're playing a game in real time, you'll always be frustrated at one point or another by the pressure of time. You're basically playing in spite of the time constraint, and it seems odd that you would enjoy the game. Managing one's time has always been an essential element of Starcraft; dismissing it as an unecessary difficulty that should be alleviated as much as possible is missing out on a large part of what the game is about. The ideal games for someone purely interested in decision-making are turn-based strategy games, where mechanical skills are irrelevant. But it's not just decision-making I'm interested in; it's making the right decision quickly. You can't force your opponent to make multiple decisions within seconds in a TBS like you can in an RTS (say I go drop his main, attack his army, and expand nearly at the same time--he has to make decisions about all of that, and he has to do it fast). Yes, there are going to be mechanics involved--I'm fine with that. I just want all the mechanical requirements to come directly from making a decision. If I want to mine minerals with my workers, setting the rally on the minerals is making the decision. Further requiring (like in BW) that I tell the worker to mine has no decision involved. If I want to build 10 marines out of 10 barracks, I don't want to have to select my barracks one-by-one. If I want to move 60 zerglings, I don't want to have to select at least five separate groups of them to do it. Having to tell my units where to go or to pull back or having to time my spells right and such is fine. Yes there's being "frustrated" by time pressure, but that's part of what I like about RTSs. I just don't like that time pressure to come from actions that could require two keypresses instead requiring ten. BW is full of forced mechanical difficulty like this--I do indeed play BW despite the UI (which makes me want to punch my monitor) like you suggest. The thing is, BW is an absolutely amazing strategic game so I play it anyway. If you give me BW with smartcasting, MBS, automine, and infinite size selection groups--by far the four biggest improvements from BW to SC2 in my mind--I'd be drooling all over the game and wondering why anyone bothers playing SC2 beta. SC2 so far does not seem as impressive or fun strategically, but it has far less forced mechanical difficulty.
Fair enough, though I wasn't talking about MBS or automine since those additions are done deals and it's pointless to retread the issue. I'm referring to "tension" and the way it's used when referring to the macro mechanics and how it's become a buzzword that extends to every macro decision, so you read claims that x mechanic is boring, give it some tension! Which often means automate it to a degree but provide other choices, as if that makes up for the removal of the mechanical requirement.
It doesn't, and it's not even comparable anyway. Removing mechanical skills from the equation and replacing them with a bunch of "decisions" (and of course you have the armchair designers offering their ideas) actually takes an element out of the game. You'll end with more decisions, but a shallower game.
Also, when you say that as a general rule you want mechanical requirements to come directly from making a decision, and you don't want to execute ten actions when only two would suffice, where do you draw the line?
After all, you could take that logic pretty far -- why should you have to cast spells when they could be automated? If you built HTs you intend to use them, so you've made your decision. Why should you have to carry out oh so boring hotkeying and clicking? Same with focus firing -- if you built a certain unit to counter an opposing unit, you've made a decision. Why have to go through the dreary task of manually selecting the target? And so on and so forth. There are still so many things in the game that are technically needless and easily automated.
In the end, I think this very casual-friendly idea that player convenience should be prioritized over everything else misses the point of a competitive game like Starcraft.
On April 24 2010 10:45 StorkHwaiting wrote:
By tension are people talking about cost/benefit? Because I thought that's what RTS were all about? Making correct cost/benefit decisions in realtime... Why suddenly change it to a buzzword like tension? Was this something stupid Blizzard employees came up with? SOrry, I haven't really been browsing the SC2 threads much.
Indeed, the word "tension" was never used, as far as I know, when referring to decision-making in SC. I think it appeared in discussions about the so-called macro mechanics introduced in SC2, and from there it seems to have spread and is now applied to every decision in the game. Is it tense enough or just boring? That's a buzzword if I've ever seen one. And the underlying argument is what the poster I'm responding to just argued.
|
On April 24 2010 16:15 snowdrift86 wrote:
After all, you could take that logic pretty far -- why should you have to cast spells when they could be automated?
There's a pretty damn big decision involved with casting most spells. Psi storm is a good example--the placement and timing is not trivial. Obviously that should not be automated. (edit: if you doubt the obviousness, read below under the second quote)
On the other hand we have Medivac heal (which is a spell, technically). Always casting it when there's a target nearby (and no other commands given) is the correct answer in almost every situation. Should be automated--and is. Blizzard had this one down more than ten years ago (unless you'd like to go back to War2 paladin healing).
Spawn larva falls into the "should be automated" category. Blizz now made it so you can't cast it on the wireframe either, so now we have something that the majority of the time we want to cast ASAP, and in addition Blizz makes it artificially more difficult than it has to be.
In general SC2 does a good job with spells and automation. Other than spawn larva I can't think of a spell that is a no-brainer to the point where the AI can and should replace your decision-making yet the game doesn't give you the option.
This most certainly goes the other way, too. If mechanical difficulty makes the game better, why let you select more than one unit? Why let you set rally points? Why not make you type in the name of every command and instead of clicking you type in (x,y) coordinates for where you want your action to occur? These all definitely make the game more challenging mechanically, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks implementing all of them makes an RTS better. If you're looking for games purely about execution, they're out there. Guitar Hero is a great example.
I think we agree that RTSs should not be purely about execution.
If you built HTs you intend to use them, so you've made your decision. Why should you have to carry out oh so boring hotkeying and clicking? Same with focus firing -- if you built a certain unit to counter an opposing unit, you've made a decision. Why have to go through the dreary task of manually selecting the target? And so on and so forth. There are still so many things in the game that are technically needless and easily automated.
Do you really not see the other decisions involved in using them? Sure choosing to make the unit is a decision. But choosing to focus fire and if so which unit and when is a nontrivial decision (along with kiting and such). Sure, a computer could make the decisions for me and then execute--but now you're cutting out a difficult decision that must be made very quickly. Having to make decisions like those is what draws me to the genre in the first place, so eliminating them in favor of automation is going in exactly the wrong direction.
In addition I'd find it hard to believe that a computer could compare with human decision-making in battles. It can compensate by being unhumanly fast so it executes better, but my guess is that humans are better at making the decisions.
In the end, I think this very casual-friendly idea that player convenience should be prioritized over everything else misses the point of a competitive game like Starcraft.
So games like Go or chess or poker or Magic: The Gathering cannot be good competitively because they're "casual-friendly" (all four of those games are very hard to play well, by the way)? Their mechanics are even easier (turn based!) than what I push for in RTSs.
My stance is that RTSs should focus on interesting decisions because that is what I personally enjoy the most. The UI should be as streamlined and player-friendly as possible so that performing any action you've decided upon is as simple as possible. Any "decisions" that really aren't decisions (do I want my medivac to heal my units? Well, damn right I do) should either be made interesting or automated.
Again, I'm not saying that my position is better than yours or that mine is correct. I understand your argument and mostly what you want; I have played BW, after all. I'm just explaining my side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
