|
On May 10 2010 19:45 Fizban140 wrote:
Halo 3 is insanely popular and has no real glitches (flag tossing maybe, but not really helpful) that are hugely ingrained into the gameplay. The Call of Duty series is like that too.
It depends what you mean by Halo 3...
MLG has taken Halo 3 and bastardized it so that they took everything out. Granted, I do like how it plays MLG style, but on the other hand, you gotta admit that it was a balance issue that users dealt with and not necessarily something the game designers intended.
As for glitches, when I followed the scene there was so much bitching about this. Apparently Halo 2 had some button glitch that let you melee/BR or double melee really quickly. There's also a bullet returning glitch that happens even on LAN where you'll fire your gun and the bullet will fail to come out, so another bullet will magically appear in your BR.
However, I will say this, Halo 3 is more popular, simply because it's "next." The quality and depth of the game doesn't particularly matter as long as people are willing to play it. For Smash Bros., Brawl is way more popular than Melee in terms of turnout, but almost everyone will consider Melee a better game.
With that said, believe it or not, the depth of a game doesn't really matter as much. As long as the game is still fun for me, I'll continue to play it, and I'm pretty sure that's what most people will do as well. Game mechanics, glitches, bugs, they're all there and I can either play it or not, and it's Blizzard's job to make sure that the game is always fresh whether it's with the game engine/mechanics or things outside of the game like tournaments/events/etc.
I don't think it's a matter of a game's "competitive viability as an e-sport" but rather, is it fun and sustainable? Can you get people to play one game for a long period of time and keep it fresh?
|
On May 09 2010 23:54 nihoh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Fizban140: Counter-strike has many bugs that makes 1.6 the superior game to Source.
First of all, spammable walls are a side effect from the engine of GldSrc - you can't get unspammable walls in 1.6. In source, spammable walls are removed, dumbing down gameplay.
Secondly, AWP quickswitch in 1.5 was basically a bug which was popularised by Ksharp. This bug involved animation cancelling of the AWP-afterfire. Swapping to a deagle and back to hte AWP would allow a quicker firing rate for the AWP rather than not switching.
Thirdly, and most important of all.. Duckrunning. Duckrunning is a technique used to run without making sound, it also screws up hitboxes, increasing the skill ceiling. Valve fixed Duckrunning in 2008, causing it to make sound when duckrunning, but prior to that it was super abused, and a very big part of Counter-strike - it still is, players regularly use duckrunning to muck up their own hitboxes, making it hard for the enemy to hit them.
Fourth.. HE grenade EXPLOSIONS pass through walls.
Fifth... Dropping guns or throwing nades at doors will open them - this bug is removed in Source, making it less viable to rush through doors such as nuke squeeky.
Sixth ... Bunnyhopping, no need to say anything about this.
Seventh - on de_nuke you can boost through nest roof by stacking two players and you go up through the roof.
Eighth.. Throwing grenades THROUGH walls.
Nineth ... There are many rooftop, skybox routes abused by top teams that make it part of the game.. Banana on inferno has one, Yard on nuke has one, you can defend dust2 short by boosting up to the roof that was NEVER intended to be a spot. 3 out of the 4 majorly played maps on Counter-strike have bugs that define and refine them.
All the bugs i've mentioned might not mean much to you, but Counter-strike is a game that is also built on bugs.
Now having said all that, I do disagree with the point being made that there has to be bugs for a great game to be made. WC3 didn't have any NOTEWORTHY bugs, and it was still the most internationally played RTS. (I said internationally, dont' rage at me)
Source rapes 1.6. The only reason people play 1.6 is because they have bad computers. I've been playing source for years and I don't see how it is in any way a worse game than 1.6.
As for the OP, you interpret things very very wrong.
The point of the story is that developers should not overreact to unexpected things. Sometimes bugs/glitches/unintended exploits add depth to the game and increase the skill ceiling. Other times they completely dumb down the game by making everything else obsolete and making it one-dimensional.
It is the duty of the game developer to observe and see if bugs are beneficial or detrimental to the game. I would hardly call muta stacking or hold lurkers detrimental. I also wouldn't say drone floating was beneficial. Things will always have to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Another example: In sc2 not long ago there was a bug where eggs could be reverted into larva at no cost. This enabled zerg players to do early pool rushes with 10-12 lings instantly as opposed to 6. It clearly was a bug, but blizzard was right to respond to it and fix it because it was ruining the game.
Just because a game has no bugs/glitches/strange things to exploit that a casual would not know about doesn't make it bad. These are more often than not detrimental. People still play chess yet the rules are simple and not exploitable.
I would say it's rather an accident when engine flaws add to the game. I think if it wasn't for muta stacking ZvT would've been much harder for zergs to the point where the game balance would've been questionable. ZvZ would've seen scourge > muta forever. I would argue that without these bugs BW is quite imbalanced. It's luck that the bugs balance the game. However, blizzard could not possibly have known that at the time it was discovered.
The problem right now as it relates to SC2 is they're trying to balance the game, but little exploits and bugs throw off the balance of the game while they're balancing it. It's like trying to solve an equation where half of it is unknown. Blizzard is going to purge every bug they find in order to make balancing feasible. Later down the road if things are discovered I don't think Blizzard will have a reason to nuke them out of existence so fast.
|
ima take a wild guess here and say you were probably terribad at the game, played for an hour and proceeded to rage quit because you got raped. dunno how your even a starcraft player.
Terrible janky trash isn't made good by the fact it has a high skill cap, he could go just play a good shooter or a good fighter not some shitty combo, just because it has a theoretically great competitive scene. Who's the judge of that though? Oh right some insular community. You can have your fun, but don't come out and try to tell everyone that it's the one of best competitive experiences and expect not to have some backlash for it.
|
The bugs aren't what make Starcraft Brood War at all. They just provide new ways to control units, and that's where variation of army control comes in. It only facilitates how players learn to control and move around units. Positioning and control is key when it comes to moving around an army in Starcraft 1, and the way armies are controlled are VERY varied between different army compositions.
The important thing is varied ARMY control AND positioning, not specifically single-unit micro. Shuttle/Reaver is not nearly as effective without a Dragoon/Zealot army behind it, Vulture micro is not as important as good mine placement and tank positioning, and Mutalisk micro is ALL about positioning and is GREATLY bolstered by Zerglings. It's the positioning and complex army control such bugs may or may not produce in the game on top of the unit design. Such things are what made Starcraft 1 so great.
Problem is, this layer of tactical thought is more or less missing from Starcraft 2.
|
On May 11 2010 04:40 LunarC wrote:
Problem is, this layer of tactical thought is more or less missing from Starcraft 2.
It's the Pros that are missing from SC2. The beta playerbase has A LOT of low level players compared to the broodwar scene.
Once the game goes retail and the koreans (hopefully) switch over to it, we will be able to truly judge it.
|
Honestly OP I think you are just plain wrong, and I'm surprised so many people are jumping on your bandwagon. You try to make connections between things that really aren't there, like Starcrafts popularity as an E-sport being due to glitches. Don't quote me on this but I think Starcraft was at its peak as an e-sport before muta stacking even was discovered. In the vast majority of games you will not see many bugs besides muta stacking and stop lurker and thats about it. It does not take any special skill to stop lurker. Moreover I think the most entertaining Starcraft to watch (and I think many would agree with me) is Lurker ling defiler vs SK Terran. The core meta game of this matchup involves absolutely no glitches. I would argue that watching Muta micro isn't actually very entertaining comparatively regardless of how much more skill it takes. TvP also involves no glitchs what so ever in the core metagame and is arguably the second most entertaining match up. Saying that its popularity as an e sport is due to some glitches that basically rarely come into play in the majority of the games is downright idiotic and intellectually indefensible. Furthermore the vast majority of skill based actions (cloning mm micro spreads ect..) in SC (save mutastacking) involve absolutely no glitches.
|
I agree with this title SO much. I strictly like to seek out games like this with "high technical skill", and the fact that its glitches just makes it a little bit more interesting. Particularly games that the community themselves seem to shape through discoveries.
Examples: Super Smash Bros. Melee, There are a lot of glitches in this that make you play at very fast speeds and chain together combos never meant to be chained together.
Gunz: Yeah I learned everything there was to learn in this game, took extreme amounts of finger memory and a few nights of my hand hurting like hell. The reward was greater though, flying around like the matrix, gunning my opponents, and owning face.
Starcraft: We all know whats up here :D
Halo 2: Double-shot, Quad-shot, BxB, and sword lunging across maps with the rocket/sword combo, except they patched that glitch, bad bungie 
Halo 1: Double wack, blowing weapons to your self with grenades, many other small glitches that have less to do with combat.
I think if a company like blizzard could purposefully add depth to their games through purposefully adding "glitches", they could attract the competitive community like crazy, even the casual community, because they have fun just figuring out glitches.
|
I absolutely hated this game, I would be running around with a shotgun trying to shoot people in the face and they would be jumping around doing all these crazy things. I eventually learned how to do the HH step and Flash step, but I never enjoyed K-style like I enjoyed playing E-style. It made it almost impossible to win without using these glitches, and that's what ruined the game for me.
It just wasn't fun using the flash step and H step to win, sure I could all kill an entire enemy team, sure I was good at it, but it just didn't feel like I was actually playing the game, it felt like I was mashing buttons in a combination to instantly win.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 11 2010 04:27 Floophead_III wrote:
Source rapes 1.6. The only reason people play 1.6 is because they have bad computers. I've been playing source for years and I don't see how it is in any way a worse game than 1.6.
Really? The computer argument?
1.6 is fundamentally better than Source for 1 reason and it's not a bug, like he said. The netcode and hitboxes are just better. It's pretty much that simple. CS 1.6 still contains the best hitscan registry of any FPS ever made.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 11 2010 05:00 Shindrah wrote:Halo 2: Double-shot, Quad-shot, BxB, and sword lunging across maps with the rocket/sword combo, except they patched that glitch, bad bungie
That's not really appropriate because on standard maps, it results in too much pressure on the dynamic of the game. It's fair in modes set up that everyone has access to those weapons, but it arguably drives the game dynamic too much on maps that by default have only 1 launcher and 1 sword.
|
Something really similar happened in the fighting game genre. Did you know that combos were originally a bug, unintended by the programmers? In vanilla Street Fighter 2 you could do those exploits, and instead of fixing it Capcom realized that it promoted a higher skill level so instead of patching it they embraced it. In later revisions of Street Fighter 2 more possible combos were added and the UI even told you when you did one.
Same thing with kara throw, which was a bug that you cancelled an animation which made your character move forward to instantly throw after, which increases the throw distance. Again, this bug was embraced, and Street Fighter IV has kara throws.
Crossups (the act of hitting the hitbox of the opponent on the opposite side of his Y axis, so that you must block in an inverse manner otherwise you get hit) were also a bug, same story Capcom saw it made the game better so they kept it. That's not to say every bug should be kept of course, Capcom fixed alot of things between games, but they saw which ones were beneficial for the game and which ones weren't.
|
Wow, this article is awesome. I used to play gunz and I agree that the game should be allowed to develop on its own
|
Dunno if its been mentioned, but:
SHFFL, Wave Dash, etc... in Super Smash
crazy shit that revolutionized the game
|
On May 11 2010 05:07 TLOBrian wrote:
It just wasn't fun using the flash step and H step to win, sure I could all kill an entire enemy team, sure I was good at it, but it just didn't feel like I was actually playing the game, it felt like I was mashing buttons in a combination to instantly win.
I havent played Gunz in a very, very long time but I hazard to bet I would still beat you in a 1 on 1. Im not saying that to brag, just that the moves were not auto win in any way, shape or fashion. And the way the game works at low ping the movement becomes secondary to aim, which was sad because there is no way to have a good experience playing if youre American =/
However, your comment in bold is most interesting to me. Because I felt exactly the same, although for a completely different reason. And that is the fact that in Gunz, you dont aim at people, you aim in front of them. And boy could I not stand that. Went back to CS and never really wanted to play Gunz again, unless I had friends on.
p.s. GunZ fundamentally does suck; pay for items ruined the game.
|
On May 11 2010 08:39 red_b wrote:
in Gunz, you dont aim at people, you aim in front of them. And boy (I can)not stand that.
Stay far away from Bad Company 2, or ArmA 2. Or skeet shooting 
|
|
|
Well that explains a lot, that site is shit. No worries.
|
On May 11 2010 01:27 laste wrote:You are wrong. The game's success isn't due to the unique play style the glitches provide but in fact, their difficulty.I played GunZ for years and the more advanced moves(combination of moves) are OBSCENELY difficult to pull off even randomly when training, let alone in an actual fight. The game is in a really bad shape, it has major flaws but they can't really change or improve anything since the essence of the game is based on these glitches. The only thing that keeps it going is its solid community. Difficulty: Thats what made GunZ fun and unique. Its the reason I still enjoy playing quake3 like nothing else after 10 years - because I can log on to quakelive and occasionally get schooled by someone thats simply better than me. Theres a challenge involved that no features, graphics, ACHIEVEMENTS, or anything else can replace. Its the reason Call of Duty12345678 sucks so much - the first time I entered the game I went on a 30 frag kill spree - the game is boring and based on luck almost entirely. Theres piles of other random content just to keep you busy but essentially, the game isn't all that challenging. Its the reason why MMOs like Lineage2 are better than World of Warcaft (I feel like I'm gonna get torched for this one ). In L2, while being the absurd grindfest cheater heaven that it is, once you reach endgame you get to enjoy exciting pvp pretty much all of the time, giant alliance battles and never ending political conflicts. While in WoW, you just raid the same bosses over and over and over again just you can gear up for the next bosses that will arrive on the next patch/expand along with 10 new levels. Sure theres a million other things to do but I really feel those are there more to keep you occupied or are like prerequisite to raiding/whatever than actually to challenge you or to have fun with. That being said I really fear SC2 is going the wrong way so far, from this point of view at the very least. Wouldn't it be awful if the final release of the game was just a dumbed down version of Broodwar with shiny new features/graphics/content? If I was blizzard I'd focus more on getting the challenge part into the game, rather than facebook chat intergration, this way it will take longer for people to master it. Because when you challenge people creativity and determination sparks in the best of them, leaving out the ones that aren't up for the challenge, and quality is produced. But if you rely on features, repetitive and easy gameplay the only thing you would be producing is zombies that generate $2 million for a few hours buying a virtual horse.
I was going to try and refute a few points but I can tell that you never actually played CoD or WoW which are both actually pretty competitive. Try to go on a 30 frag kill streak against some good players in CoD 2, I doubt you will get a kill.
|
On May 11 2010 08:39 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 05:07 TLOBrian wrote:
It just wasn't fun using the flash step and H step to win, sure I could all kill an entire enemy team, sure I was good at it, but it just didn't feel like I was actually playing the game, it felt like I was mashing buttons in a combination to instantly win. I havent played Gunz in a very, very long time but I hazard to bet I would still beat you in a 1 on 1. Im not saying that to brag, just that the moves were not auto win in any way, shape or fashion. And the way the game works at low ping the movement becomes secondary to aim, which was sad because there is no way to have a good experience playing if youre American =/ However, your comment in bold is most interesting to me. Because I felt exactly the same, although for a completely different reason. And that is the fact that in Gunz, you dont aim at people, you aim in front of them. And boy could I not stand that. Went back to CS and never really wanted to play Gunz again, unless I had friends on. p.s. GunZ fundamentally does suck; pay for items ruined the game.
The netcode/game engine was what ruined the game before the items. The items just further fucked it up. Lagshields and weirdly clocked computers made some people unhittable, and left little room to see if they were hacking or just had a weird internet connection.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 11 2010 09:49 Fizban140 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 01:27 laste wrote:You are wrong. The game's success isn't due to the unique play style the glitches provide but in fact, their difficulty.I played GunZ for years and the more advanced moves(combination of moves) are OBSCENELY difficult to pull off even randomly when training, let alone in an actual fight. The game is in a really bad shape, it has major flaws but they can't really change or improve anything since the essence of the game is based on these glitches. The only thing that keeps it going is its solid community. Difficulty: Thats what made GunZ fun and unique. Its the reason I still enjoy playing quake3 like nothing else after 10 years - because I can log on to quakelive and occasionally get schooled by someone thats simply better than me. Theres a challenge involved that no features, graphics, ACHIEVEMENTS, or anything else can replace. Its the reason Call of Duty12345678 sucks so much - the first time I entered the game I went on a 30 frag kill spree - the game is boring and based on luck almost entirely. Theres piles of other random content just to keep you busy but essentially, the game isn't all that challenging. Its the reason why MMOs like Lineage2 are better than World of Warcaft (I feel like I'm gonna get torched for this one ). In L2, while being the absurd grindfest cheater heaven that it is, once you reach endgame you get to enjoy exciting pvp pretty much all of the time, giant alliance battles and never ending political conflicts. While in WoW, you just raid the same bosses over and over and over again just you can gear up for the next bosses that will arrive on the next patch/expand along with 10 new levels. Sure theres a million other things to do but I really feel those are there more to keep you occupied or are like prerequisite to raiding/whatever than actually to challenge you or to have fun with. That being said I really fear SC2 is going the wrong way so far, from this point of view at the very least. Wouldn't it be awful if the final release of the game was just a dumbed down version of Broodwar with shiny new features/graphics/content? If I was blizzard I'd focus more on getting the challenge part into the game, rather than facebook chat intergration, this way it will take longer for people to master it. Because when you challenge people creativity and determination sparks in the best of them, leaving out the ones that aren't up for the challenge, and quality is produced. But if you rely on features, repetitive and easy gameplay the only thing you would be producing is zombies that generate $2 million for a few hours buying a virtual horse. I was going to try and refute a few points but I can tell that you never actually played CoD or WoW which are both actually pretty competitive. Try to go on a 30 frag kill streak against some good players in CoD 2, I doubt you will get a kill.
He probably meant MW1 or 2 where it's all just pubbing. CoD 1 and 2 were totally different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
