|
On July 22 2010 04:04 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 02:55 TheAntZ wrote:On July 22 2010 02:50 Piy wrote:On July 22 2010 02:41 TheAntZ wrote:On July 22 2010 02:36 Piy wrote: We are excited about a new game with new possibilities for creativity and interest. It lacks the polish of BW currently, but we are looking forward to actively experiencing it's growth, both as an esport and a game in itself.
It has little to do with anything else. Sure, I dont think anyone wants SC2 to fail tbh, not even the most die-hard BW fans. I mean come on, if its gonna be a better game, theres no reason not to play it. The thing is, right now, its not. And the reasons its not dont seem to be something that will change with patching and expansions (read above to see what I mean) Im just trying to get an explanation to refute those problems/points from someone, I am definitely not an SC2 anti-fan That's the same logic that indicates that we should never watch any film but Citizen Kane because it is the best ever, and every film since then has been a waste of time. Nobody should have bothered writing plays after Hamlet. Noone should have released an album after Sgt. Pepper. Every RPG since FFIV deserved to sell no copies. See how bad this reasoning is? I think you are exaggerating. Im not saying people shouldnt buy SC2, or play it, thats ridiculous. I'm just saying that I think there are certain aspects of it that keep it from having the scope to imrpove. I'd definitely buy the game, even if it was absolute shit, if only for the single player. But in a contest between BW and sc2 for long term play, if sc2 doesnt gain that 'oomph!' that BW had (in ways that i described in previous posts), then BW is simply the better game. This is not saying that sc2 will never gain that, I'm just not sure how it should, or how blizzard should go about making it so. But there's no way of predicting that. You just seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it.
I dont even understand how you could thing im 'disagreeing for the sake of it' because thats what you seem to be doing. I put forward my points in one of my first posts, you did nothing to address or refute them. You just keep saying im wrong without giving any reasoning.
|
I think SC2 will get better in terms of strategy and management. Remember Brood War sucked in its early years, but then it got better with the time as progamers discovered new strategies in all MU and the game got balanced and very interesting to play and watch. It'll be the same for SC2.
|
10387 Posts
On July 22 2010 02:14 butchji wrote: Comparing StarCraft2 with StarCraft1 without BroodWar and any balancing would be more reasonable You know, I played some vanilla SC recently with some friends and the balance isn't bad at all, TvZ works in a different dynamic and so does ZvP, altho PvT is imba due to no range goliaths. And you know what, playing vanilla SC was still very very fun due to the freshness of a new spin on PvZ and TvZ, and it was helluva lot more fun to watch then boring SC2.
And bullshit on those saying it took BW to become perfect, BW was perfect since 1.08, which is back in like 2000. It only took them about a year or so to perfect the game, its just the players took a decade to become perfect. Please stop saying that BW took a decade to become perfect, its a fucking stupid statement.
On July 22 2010 00:41 ramen247 wrote: go ahead but broodwar at first did not have this insane micro either. what is this bullshit, BW was primarily a micro game from the start, the micro was insane in its own way, where they played it like WC3 and made the most out of every damn unit they had.
|
On July 22 2010 04:33 Arkqn wrote: I think SC2 will get better in terms of strategy and management. Remember Brood War sucked in its early years, but then it got better with the time as progamers discovered new strategies in all MU and the game got balanced and very interesting to play and watch. It'll be the same for SC2.
Read this please:
+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2010 01:58 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:54 Piy wrote: Of course you can't compare BW and a game that hasn't been released yet. C'mon. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:23 Ideas wrote: man i hate all this thought about "yea but SC2 isnt 12 years old!!!!"
it doesnt matter how old the game is. there is a competition between BW and SC2 right now, a competition to take up our free time. right now BW is out and costs 20$. SC2 is out and will cost 60$ in 3 weeks. basically you are all saying "yea BW is better but in a few years SC2 might be as good! just give it time!" is it unfair to compare the 2? absolutely not. Sure it has a lesser developed metagame but that doesnt mean i have to play this inferior game for 2 years until MAYBE it gets better.
basically BW is superior to SC2 right now in every gameplay regard except accessibility, which is where the masses of new SC2 users probably find most appealing (there is also probably the lot of people who like playing a game where most strategies are widely undiscovered, although that doesnt really apply to this comparison).
will SC2 improve and have greater dynamics over time? maybe. the expansions will add new units for sure, but even if they rival BW in terms of completely awesome game-changing units that are possibly the most exciting in the game, i have doubts that it will ever match the perfection of BW. a fun distraction for a time? sure, but it will just be like any other game i play for a week or 2 and then go back to my real game, BW. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:50 cHaNg-sTa wrote:On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote: I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand... Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't. Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc. SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you. Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today. I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 15:11 QibingZero wrote: The years we've spent since SC was released were not just spent learning how to play that game - they were largely spent learning how to play RTS games. The best WC2 players on Kali, the best SC players at launch... players at that skill level would have trouble holding D on iccup today. The first day a player like Idra or Nony touched SC2, they were better at it than anyone was at SC for years. This is how far the RTS world has come since.
What I'm getting at is that all of these 'give it time' posts are ridiculous. Do you really think the top players aren't trying out every possible way to win? With players being picked up by eSports teams before the game is even released, you'd better believe they're trying every little trick they can to get the advantage over others. Despite everything though, they can't make infestors as game-changing as defilers were. They can't make skirmishes come as interesting as marine vs lurker or goons vs early terran pressure. There are limitations in place that simply cannot be overcome by 'figuring more stuff out'.
By the way, there's a terrible misconception going on here. It didn't take 10+ years for Starcraft to be an amazing and dynamic game to play and watch. In fact, we've enjoyed it for that long. I keep these in my profile for these occasions
Also, what made BW great is that it is not designed to play like we play it now, nobody wanted us to 3 hatch muta or 9 minute push in TvZ. These carefully planned out build orders and strategies were made by players. With starcraft 2, however, blizzard already tried to create a super-balanced ultra fun competitive game, they already tried to make it similar to the current state of bw (i mean balanced and competitive) from launch because obviously people are not going to wait 9 years until the game "gets better"
Obviously that is why you cant say "dont compare vanilla sc2 to brood war" and shit like that, its retarded. The game is supposed to be good right now, are you saying that you are only playing the game because you want to wait years before blizzard stops patching and expanding the game?
And yeah im not expecting sc2 to be a near-perfect competitive game because obviously its designed mainly for casual players since thats where the money is at.
|
I'll stick with iccup, proleague streams and the occasional sc2 ums/ffa/2v2 with buddies. Still I'm looking forward to the sc2 single player campaign.
|
On July 22 2010 00:44 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:41 ramen247 wrote: go ahead but broodwar at first did not have this insane micro either. yes but we no better now, we are actively looking for it and can't find it. you sound just like ssbb players. At first they all said that, now everyone knows that braw is just a shit game and all of the hard core melee players predictions have come true- brawl and sc2 is for noobs.
Terrible example. People were looking for it back then as well - the thing is that you don't know Starcraft 2, whereas from Melee to Brawl, the game was almost identical. Of course that BW is better now, but saying that there's no way SC2 can get better is incredibly narrow-minded.
|
Ugh...
BW lacked experience when it first came out.
SC2 already has the experience and the top-notch players, and yet it's still powerfully underwhelming. The issue is not with how much we can do in the coming years to develop the game even further, the issue is with the fundamentals of the game itself. It just doesn't have the same potential that BW had (and reached).
Sure, SC2 might be entertaining and exciting for the viewers. Sure, it might still be difficult, fun, and rewarding for the players. But it doesn't do it in the same way that BW did it for all the hardcore players.
It's lacking many things that BW has and instead has so many superfluous gadgets and gizmos that are just so meh.
I think an apt comparison would be the older Acura Integra and the newer Honda Civic. You might have all the nice commodities of a modern car that makes the Civic luxurious and comfortable for everyone. But in the end, no one can deny that the Integra is a blast to drive, and far more at that than the Civic.
When it comes to buying time, it's all up to the consumer to purchase whatever they want. For the veteran BW players, they know the experience of playing a game that has aged perfectly like fine wine, and nothing can replace BW. For everyone else, what's new and "in" is the most appealing, and SC2 will be right on the shelves for their eager little hands.
Even though I'll be among the many sheeples playing SC2 but BW will always be the real game.
|
On July 22 2010 04:33 Arkqn wrote: I think SC2 will get better in terms of strategy and management. Remember Brood War sucked in its early years, but then it got better with the time as progamers discovered new strategies in all MU and the game got balanced and very interesting to play and watch. It'll be the same for SC2.
In its early years nobody knew what an RTS was. They were so new. Now we have thousands of players with years upon years of RTS experience playing a game with similar mechanics to its predecessor. The average skill of RTS players in general has grown exponentially. Back when BW came out people didn't even have the idea to make excess workers to transfer to an expansion. We've pretty much carried over all of our mechanics (macro, positioning, adding buildings, etc), concepts of timing, micro, and whatnot over to Sc2. The "remember BW sucked in the beginning too" argument is really stupid and shortsighted.
|
My opinion since it's my blog:
Brood War's better for now and likely always will be. I'll be playing it til the end of time (or until computers get too good for it). Starcraft 2 is a good game but it isn't likely that it'll ever be as good as Brood War. But hey, there's always a chance. But in the end, that's what the casuals flock to so that's where the good foreigners will go so they can earn money.
|
On July 22 2010 00:38 neobowman wrote: Brood War was just perfect. You can't recreate a lurker contain in Z v P in Starcraft 2. The moment of insane micro when a Protoss tries to break out, the Zerg tries to snipe the observer and the Protoss in turn, tries to storm the **** out of every living Zerg unit while trying to save his observer at the same time. There's no Starcraft 2 equivalent. It seems perfect to you because the level of play has evolved so much. Perfection, or near perfection is achieved over time, and may have little to do with the game itself. As uttered numerous times before, it's too early to tell.
In any case you can't recreate a lurker contain in ZvP in SC2 simply because there is no lurker in SC2 =p
|
On July 22 2010 01:53 TheAntZ wrote: In broodwar most of the 'epic' micro and tense moments came about because of players fighting against the interface for control. You dont need to fight against sc2, it gives it away easy. tl;dr: sc2 is a slut, bw is a hard to get prude. I'm gonna give it more time definitely, i still do watch it if not play, but I dont think micro and tense situations similar to BW will ever arise.
It's not just the interface. BW had many units that were a) powerful and b) very hard to control. These units that would single handedly decide a battle depending on how they were used, and that had overwhelming potential but could also royally suck depending on how you used them.
Examples include: Vessels, defilers, mines, lurkers (position these poorly or burrow a few seconds too late vs terran and your army evaporates in seconds), templars, reaver / shuttle, arbiter, mutas (being microed) and whatnot. Add to that an unforgiving interface that only allows you to control 12 units at a time and you have an extremely entertaining to watch micro battle.
|
"Its a better game" is a massively subjective statement.
If you prefer it, great. But its not better in any objective sense.
|
On July 22 2010 05:38 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:53 TheAntZ wrote: In broodwar most of the 'epic' micro and tense moments came about because of players fighting against the interface for control. You dont need to fight against sc2, it gives it away easy. tl;dr: sc2 is a slut, bw is a hard to get prude. I'm gonna give it more time definitely, i still do watch it if not play, but I dont think micro and tense situations similar to BW will ever arise. It's not just the interface. BW had many units that were a) powerful and b) very hard to control. These units that would single handedly decide a battle depending on how they were used, and that had overwhelming potential but could also royally suck depending on how you used them. Examples include: Vessels, defilers, mines, lurkers (position these poorly or burrow a few seconds too late vs terran and your army evaporates in seconds), templars, reaver / shuttle, arbiter, mutas (being microed) and whatnot. Add to that an unforgiving interface that only allows you to control 12 units at a time and you have an extremely entertaining to watch micro battle.
yea SC2 is just missing the super-units of BW like defilers, lurkers, reavers, mines, etc. they still have strong units like colossi and broodlords, but they just lack that risk/reward and gameplay depth that the BW equivalent had. there's not much to controlling a colossi well in battle outside of just kiting. compare that to a reaver where you are constantly taking it in and out of a shuttle in battle and aiming your scarabs correctly.
the expansions REALLY need to add units that have a lot more depth to controlling them (IE it takes a lot of practice to properly control them well like reaver/shuttle or muta micro) and have a high risk/high reward mentality. right now i cant really think of any SC2 units that are nearly as exciting as the BW super-units.
|
On July 22 2010 01:26 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:59 Arrian wrote:you're not giving it enough time On July 22 2010 00:44 Misrah wrote:On July 22 2010 00:41 ramen247 wrote: go ahead but broodwar at first did not have this insane micro either. yes but we no better now, we are actively looking for it and can't find it. you sound just like ssbb players. At first they all said that, now everyone knows that braw is just a shit game and all of the hard core melee players predictions have come true- brawl and sc2 is for noobs. brawl was designed to be a shit game. it was designed not to be competitive. sakuri even said so. that's a false analogy and looking for it is really irrelevant. nobody looked for wavedashing. hell, the developers even knew about wavedashing but it took years for anybody else to come up with it. it was discovered by accident. nobody was looking for certain micro tricks/gimmicks etc. these things are discovered, not invented. it takes time, and dedication, but they happen. the impatience among the community is profoundly misplaced, and it hurts the game when people don't even give it a chance when they expect the game to be as developed as bw right out of the gate. Wavedashing didn't take years. It took like a year before people found it. People even implemented it a few months after its discovery. Also, people didn't look for wavedashing because it didn't exist in smash64 (and people hardly played that). Compare it to L-canceling which was in both, and I'm pretty sure Isai knew about it and looked for it. And the tricks and gimmicks part actually applies to both games because regardless of the intent behind the creation of the games, the glitches/tricks/gimmicks will exist anyway. Even if Sakurai wanted Melee to be a shit game, if he didn't stop the glitches, it would be competitive. Speaking of which, when was it stated that the developers knew of wavedashing already? I mean, they probably knew of L-canceling because it was in both 64 and melee, and then auto-canceling in brawl, but wavedashing?
I'll jump in here, Melee is the only game I play really really serious right now:
1. Developers put L-cancelling in Melee to make it more competitively. 2. Wavedashing was discovered during the final months of developement but the devs didn't care and decided to let it stay.
|
United States889 Posts
On July 22 2010 05:16 squaremanhole wrote: Ugh...
BW lacked experience when it first came out.
SC2 already has the experience and the top-notch players, and yet it's still powerfully underwhelming. The issue is not with how much we can do in the coming years to develop the game even further, the issue is with the fundamentals of the game itself. It just doesn't have the same potential that BW had (and reached).
Sure, SC2 might be entertaining and exciting for the viewers. Sure, it might still be difficult, fun, and rewarding for the players. But it doesn't do it in the same way that BW did it for all the hardcore players.
It's lacking many things that BW has and instead has so many superfluous gadgets and gizmos that are just so meh.
Pardon me for being 'that guy' but how exactly do you know that? Like...any of it?
How do you know it doesn't have the same potential, or that it doesn't do it for all the 'hardcore' players? Like...you're speaking for a lot of people here, and I don't really know where you come off doing it. A number of vocal people have said they're not playing SC2, but there's a whole new lot coming to SC2 as well who are hard core gamers from other games like War3 and the like. And as for potential, how do you know? Have you tried every unit combo, every ability in every situation and tried units in various mechanical situations to tease out any extra uses? I doubt it. Just give the game time before you judge it and the community so broadly. It may well happen that it doesn't have the depth, but we have no way of knowing it yet. The game hasn't even been released.
|
On July 22 2010 03:40 shadesofkarma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 03:19 LuckyFool wrote: I'm playing broodwar through usa wcg then it'll be pure sc2. sc2 is the future, it's what everyones interested in and it's where the money, sponsors, events and tournaments are headed so I have no choice. Neither do the major teams or top level players. Many people agree broodwar is the better game but what wins the day in the end are viewers and money. What do people want to watch and sponsor now? starcraft 2. are you playing for the sponsors or because you love the game?
When I first started playing broodwar I played because I loved the game. I still love the game. It is and probably always will be the better game. But as I grew older I found I stopped playing as much simply for the love of the game and more for the rush and excitement of competing with other good players. I loved the feeling I got right before an important tournament game or some higher profile match against somebody well known. Sponsors and money keep top players playing the game at top levels and provide tournaments and situations like this. It also gives you people to look up to and respect in terms of skill and ability, IdrA, Nony, White-Ra, they played because of sponsors and money and while I knew I was never going to be at their level, to be playing the same game and studying them helped rise the competitive level of the game and helped overall make the game more competitive and amazing.
I was never sponsored in broodwar or ever played for money the best rank I ever got was B on iccup (during tsl ladder when it was much easier) I was never a top level player, but the past 1.5 years or so I've played primarily because of events, such as tsl and wcgs. Of course I loved the game but both money and the competitive aspects that money and sponsors brought to the game started carrying equal weight for me. Also I wanted to be able to have things I could talk about with my friends in real life and money and sponsors make playing so much seem more worthwhile. People would ask me "Why are you playing that old game so much?" And I'd be able to tell them about the TSL and the winner gets 10k, then they would just tell me to go play more and win that 10k. I knew I never really had a chance but I started having more and more conversations and started getting more people around me more interested in broodwar thanks to the sponsor/money situation and major tournaments and wcgs.
I still love the game but I love competing and tournaments just as much now too and if I continue to only play broodwar only the first half of this equation will be fulfilled. On the other hand sc2 only seems to fulfill the second part of this equation. So I will be forced to make a decision. Considering the majority of my friends are moving to sc2 and the majority of people only seem to care about sc2 now I will have no choice really but to switch to sc2, people want sc2 events/lans they want sc2 tournaments and teams. I've made the decision to stop playing as much for the love of the game when I quit playing almost purely on useast 1.5 years ago to try and push myself in wcg's and various other lan events and tournaments.
I will continue to play broodwar occasionally because I do indeed love the game but I'm at a point now where whether I like it or not the business aspects have started pulling me over purely loving the game.
|
lol I will keep posting similar stuff in these type of threads, but that is because I'm proud of it: I'll be playing BW forever! <3333333333
|
Starcraft II is not perfect in its current state, I think it will eventually become perfect through patches and just the community.
|
On July 22 2010 06:10 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 05:16 squaremanhole wrote: Ugh...
BW lacked experience when it first came out.
SC2 already has the experience and the top-notch players, and yet it's still powerfully underwhelming. The issue is not with how much we can do in the coming years to develop the game even further, the issue is with the fundamentals of the game itself. It just doesn't have the same potential that BW had (and reached).
Sure, SC2 might be entertaining and exciting for the viewers. Sure, it might still be difficult, fun, and rewarding for the players. But it doesn't do it in the same way that BW did it for all the hardcore players.
It's lacking many things that BW has and instead has so many superfluous gadgets and gizmos that are just so meh. Pardon me for being 'that guy' but how exactly do you know that? Like...any of it? How do you know it doesn't have the same potential, or that it doesn't do it for all the 'hardcore' players? Like...you're speaking for a lot of people here, and I don't really know where you come off doing it. A number of vocal people have said they're not playing SC2, but there's a whole new lot coming to SC2 as well who are hard core gamers from other games like War3 and the like. And as for potential, how do you know? Have you tried every unit combo, every ability in every situation and tried units in various mechanical situations to tease out any extra uses? I doubt it. Just give the game time before you judge it and the community so broadly. It may well happen that it doesn't have the depth, but we have no way of knowing it yet. The game hasn't even been released. Refer to Ideas' post, I think he sums it up better than I could.
|
On July 22 2010 01:58 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:54 Piy wrote: Of course you can't compare BW and a game that hasn't been released yet. C'mon. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:23 Ideas wrote: man i hate all this thought about "yea but SC2 isnt 12 years old!!!!"
it doesnt matter how old the game is. there is a competition between BW and SC2 right now, a competition to take up our free time. right now BW is out and costs 20$. SC2 is out and will cost 60$ in 3 weeks. basically you are all saying "yea BW is better but in a few years SC2 might be as good! just give it time!" is it unfair to compare the 2? absolutely not. Sure it has a lesser developed metagame but that doesnt mean i have to play this inferior game for 2 years until MAYBE it gets better.
basically BW is superior to SC2 right now in every gameplay regard except accessibility, which is where the masses of new SC2 users probably find most appealing (there is also probably the lot of people who like playing a game where most strategies are widely undiscovered, although that doesnt really apply to this comparison).
will SC2 improve and have greater dynamics over time? maybe. the expansions will add new units for sure, but even if they rival BW in terms of completely awesome game-changing units that are possibly the most exciting in the game, i have doubts that it will ever match the perfection of BW. a fun distraction for a time? sure, but it will just be like any other game i play for a week or 2 and then go back to my real game, BW. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:50 cHaNg-sTa wrote:On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote: I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand... Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't. Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc. SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you. Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today. I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game. Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 15:11 QibingZero wrote: The years we've spent since SC was released were not just spent learning how to play that game - they were largely spent learning how to play RTS games. The best WC2 players on Kali, the best SC players at launch... players at that skill level would have trouble holding D on iccup today. The first day a player like Idra or Nony touched SC2, they were better at it than anyone was at SC for years. This is how far the RTS world has come since.
What I'm getting at is that all of these 'give it time' posts are ridiculous. Do you really think the top players aren't trying out every possible way to win? With players being picked up by eSports teams before the game is even released, you'd better believe they're trying every little trick they can to get the advantage over others. Despite everything though, they can't make infestors as game-changing as defilers were. They can't make skirmishes come as interesting as marine vs lurker or goons vs early terran pressure. There are limitations in place that simply cannot be overcome by 'figuring more stuff out'.
By the way, there's a terrible misconception going on here. It didn't take 10+ years for Starcraft to be an amazing and dynamic game to play and watch. In fact, we've enjoyed it for that long. I keep these in my profile for these occasions
Thank you AntZ.. I was about to have to waste my time explaining all these points but you saved me <3
gonna have to keep this in my profile too..
|
|
|
|