Preface: I understand that I may be opening a somewhat controversial discussion. However I intend to open it up in a different way. Instead of having random threads being derailed by melee vs brawl, broodwar vs sc2 rants, I intend to bring it all into one meaningful blog, as they all concern the same discussion, an apparent lack of depth in the next game in a series, only noticeable by those who have played the previous game. I intend to show both sides of the argument, however as it is a blog, it will contain my own point of view. A blog is usually intended to be subjective, however if this blog ends up turning into an out of control game vs game discussion, I am happy for the mods to close this.
----------------------------
Why did you make the decision to remove parrying for Street Fighter IV?
Yoshinori Ono: "I didn't want to create an entertainment videogame as such. I wanted Street Fighter IV to be a tool for the people to use and enjoy themselves.
I often use the analogy of a chess game. Chess can be played by the American or Russian champion, if you like. We can see them playing chess on live TV and so on. The parrying system is that level. It's quite hard for the vast majority to master but chess can be played by grandpa and grand kids on a Sunday afternoon.
I want Street Fighter IV to be a tool for everyone to enjoy. Therefore I deliberately didn't include the parrying system. But you know we carried on with the focus attack and such. Basically we used the rule book from Street Fighter II because that was the most popular."
Street Fighter III Evo Tournament 2004 Grand Final A thankyou to thereisnosaurus for showing me this! Daigo (Ken) on almost zero health, parries every single attack from Justin Wong (Chun Li), then on Wongs final hit, Daigo parries mid-air and transitions into his own combo to win the tournament.
The parry ability was removed in Street Fighter 4
Recently there has been a trend of game companies and game designers moving towards more casual friendly games. Which appears to be the single biggest cause of thread derailment, in the history of popular online forums. Players of previous games in the series, will often scathe in disgust at how much depth is removed with each volume in a game series. A minority of new comers will often read this as a pile of noise and come up with irrational counter arguments with no knowledge of the previous game. This causes the veterans to get frustrated and start being irrational themselves, those particularly angered will start mud-slinging on the new game causing collateral damage in the process. Thus making both sides look like complete tools so neither side can have a proper discussion. Now, everything is ruined for the majority, because of the minority.
Next I will give an example of an all too familiar situation, broken down into very general statements. Generally the discussion will end up in a pile of drivel, which repeats these points.
A: The previous game was so much more interesting - B: Give it time, it will become as good as the new game - B: You are just being nostalgic
A: The game should have kept X glitch, it allowed for a greater skill ceiling and more spectacular games - B: Game designers have a right to have players play the game, the way it was meant to be played - B: New players don't want to play a game with glitches
A: The game removed X, which required a lot of skill, now pro games are skill-less and boring - B: The removal of X, will cause an increase in Y - B: This means that people who aren't good at X, will now have a chance to beat a pro
A: (Response to everything B says) I can't believe you can say that, you don't even know anything about the old game, you are wrong, the new game is clearly worse because of X, [posts youtube clip]. See?!
Notice how all of B's answers cannot be proved true or false. So they seem like completely valid points, especially to those who have never played the previous game before. Of course, to those who have played the previous game alot, it sounds like a whole lot of bull. It is also especially appealing, because notice that value and emphasis is placed on a new comer of the game. "Now you don't have to be good at X, to be good at the game!"
To some, B may seem like a complete asshat, or you may think I am being biased. I don't think I am, I believe A is always the side come up with well informed points, because they can. They are vets, they know a lot about the previous game, and are savvy enough gamers to have played the next game, often even more so than B, that's easily enough to make a decision.
I think that some people who may read this, will think that B is being irrational, but may themselves have made very similar kinds of responses without realising, because now that its out of context its much easier to gain an objective point of view. However, I believe this happens because new players and old players have different values. As you get better at a game, or play the game longer, new experiences will cause your values change and have a different perspective of the game. Maybe you start watching pro level games, suddenly X glitch seems really appealing, suddenly, your stance changes.
Super Smash Bros Melee Revival of Melee: Shiz vs MewTwoKing. MewTwoKing uses his signiture play style to comeback from 1:3 into a 4:3 victory.
Chain grabs, L Cancel, Dash dancing, were all removed in Super Smash Bros Brawl
Super Smash Bros Brawl MLG Orlando 2010: MewTwoKing vs Ally. Same player, much bigger tournament, I will let you guys judge for yourselves. (^~^)
My opinion is this, and note that I am also talking about competitive games only. Which is where I think the quote at the top has it wrong, because you are never going to play Street Fighter with your Grandpa just after a family dinner.
Chess is also hard to learn, every piece has a different use and different movements in different situations, openings are complicated, taking pieces is complicated. You basically need play a game against expert on the rules, to understand the rules, in which case you are going to lose anyway.
In Street Fighter, two equally inexperienced players can play, even if you don't know the rules, you can still win. However you can't just move any piece anywhere in chess (Example: Turn 1, I take your king with my king, I win?), you need someone to teach you. Now ask a random on the street if they know how to play Chess and then ask if they know how to play Street Fighter. Unfortunately, his reasoning has nothing to do with his response.
"Easy to learn, hard to master" is not a concept that arose because of SC2 or Dustin Browder. The same exact quote was used in Street Fighter 3 vs Street Fighter 4 debates. However I think this is a broken concept. The reason I believe it is broken is because as soon as you start making the game easy to learn, you are making it easier to master. Dash dancing, L Cancel, Parry, Stacking -> Moving Shot, Spidermines / Reavers / Lurkers. These were removed under the pretense of "easy to learn, hard to master".
I think people are starting to become completely off the mark when they associate easy with fun. In a situation, where there is E-Sports and a community that thrives on its competitive environment, I believe a better concept should be "Fun to learn, Hard to master".
Nevake: 2010 Bacchus OSL Ro8 Stork vs Hiya. Hiya is simply stumped when facing Storks sublime reaver control. Crowd chants SONG BYUNG GU!
The Reaver unit was removed in Starcraft 2
It's not whether or not learning is easy, it's about whether the learning is fun. When a game is hard to learn, but fun to learn, you can have the best of both worlds, an extremely dynamic E-Sports game, as well as a strong foundation of up and coming players.
Many physical sports, are actually very hard to learn. The only reason it seems simple now, is because you have been learning developing the coordination since you were little. Shooting a 3 pointer, that's hard, but also a very basic skill. Imagine if it was removed from the game, because it allowed good players to have an advantage. Indeed isn't that the entire point of sports? so people can be beat someone else because they are better? God knows what would have happened if we thought of Brazillians in soccer, the same way we saw Koreans in Starcraft.
Seems completely obvious, however for competitive games the "allowed to be better" rule doesn't apply for some reason. If there is a feature in a game, which allows good players to be better indefinitely against bad players, just like good players being able to shoot 3's and bad players not, for some reason, there will be people that believe the feature needs to be removed.
The reason this discussion never happens in sports, is because the amount of effort it takes to change a rule, so there is no point arguing, just deal with it. The second point is that there is so much media publicity, that when in context, the feature seems completely reasonable. If you follow a pro because he has expressed a particular talent in a certain field (Example: Muta Micro -> July Zerg/Jaedong), you will never want the feature removed, because that would mean your favorite player would also end up, well, not being your favorite player anymore. You may just stop watching or playing the game altogether because of it.
That last point I think, is particularly important, it puts value in E-Sports. If E-Sports got as big as regular sports, people would complain less about balances, more "competitive" features that make the game more exciting would be added as well. Basketball brought in the shot-clock, to improve the game for spectators, and in turn, improving the game itself.
Especially in Australia at the moment, since AFL Football has been in competition with soccer, its off-season rules have seen some quite drastic changes, even cricket has brought in shorter overs in order to make the game more fast paced.
Now you may think that I have segwayed into sports a little too much. However these points are necessary to gain an understanding in why these debates happen. Simply put, game companies are wrong to put casualness ahead of competitiveness, and then promote E-Sports. Its a very expensive way of doing it, because they don't complement each other. However the complete opposite will create a virtuous cycle.
I understand that people are going to make the point about money. However those that do, I believe do not understand business, because then you would know about the triple bottom line.
All of Blizzards actions in the past have focused on the triple bottom line, then compare this to Activision who only focuses on money, so far Blizzards massive fan base and quality games is due to sustainable growth, and not focusing entirely on profits. Blizzard makes a fraction of its money from Starcraft 2 compared to WoW. I would like to see if Blizzard can channel its long term focus, into growing Starcraft 2 as an E-Sport, rather than growing it as a semi-casual competitive game, and injecting money into growing it as an E-Sport. Its easy to know why half of BroodWar sales have been from Korea, I can tell you now, it wasn't because it was casual friendly.
If the E-Sport gets big, it attracts more players, this produces more professionals, the players will stop complaining because they now have pros that they idolise, this allows for more competitive rules, allowing pros to become more distinct, gaining media attention, allowing more fans, which attracts more players... you get the idea.
TeamLiquidNet: Fruit Dealer highlight video A video highlighting his amazing triumph inspite of all the zergs dropping like lings in the tournament. An almost dreamlike result that, combined with his unique micro and his art of visually awe inspiring decision making, completely changed many peoples perspective of the game.
Lately many of his innovations have ceased to last the test of time as the game gets more figured out, I would like to see SC2 complement even more fun to watch styles of play and help to make them last.
Enlivee: Moons Banelings Burrowed banelings are rarely seen in high level tournaments. Maybe a burrowed baneling explosion buff would make the game more exciting?
If it becomes more prestigious as a sport, rules changes will also only make the game more difficult for the players, but more fun to play and more fun to watch. This is the virtuous cycle that large sports have developed, and I believe is a fundamental requirement for competitive games.
I don't really understand your point. BW does have all those things that make it awesome so why should we even play a different game even if it is new?
On February 21 2011 01:46 etheovermind wrote: I don't really understand your point. BW does have all those things that make it awesome so why should we even play a different game even if it is new?
Exactly, BW does have those things that make it awesome, and SC2 removed many of those features under the pretense of "easy to learn, hard to master" or casual friendliness.
Many other games are doing the same, causing a whole lot of rage. I explain how game companies are mistaken, when focusing on casual friendliness in order to produce a sustainable community. When you notice that its the competitive games, like BroodWar, that have the most sustainable communities.
Companies want to make money, not make an immortal game. That's another reason BW is great. The game company isn't making any money off it so its more like a real sport like soccer or basketball.
On February 21 2011 01:57 etheovermind wrote: Companies want to make money, not make an immortal game. That's another reason BW is great. The game company isn't making any money off it so its more like a real sport like soccer or basketball.
My post is a little big so I can understand you not remembering it all. I do however address this point, using the example of the triple bottom line. Blizzard never focuses fully on money, most good businesses don't, Activision does. Which company has the most sustainable growth, probably Blizzard. Almost everyone hates Activision, just because they make a lot of money right now doesn't make them successful, as money isn't the only criteria for a successful business. People will even buy games from Blizzard simply because they are made by Blizzard, this is unheard of for Activision.
Immortal games are exactly what Blizzard has aimed to do. Its why they are so popular, and have such a solid consumer base.
I support you man, some current games are becoming more and more casual friendly == easy to lean, easy to master. If we want e-sports to be taken seriously, the game must have a deep level of depth that can separate the pro's from the high level amateur player. Example like anyone can go play basketball, but it takes a lot of skill to become a pro. Not everyone can play like 2 years and be a pro. Even pro's can miss dunks or easy shots since its hard to master a sport completely. There needs to be more depth in a game that is marketed as 'e-sports' and as well as being deep enough to produce players that have distinctive styles. Imagine if the winner of the OSL is no different than the winner of the amateur leagues, people would not take pro sc seriously.
Fun to learn, hard to master and easy to learn, hard to master, they are roughly the same though. It depends on people taste to be fun.
this was a great read, i never really looked at it in this way before. I especially liked the use of SSBM vs Brawl, cause ive had similar arguments with friends about it, they dont like it cause of the 'glitches' and i feel thats what makes the game as great as it is
When they say "easy to learn and fun to master", they really mean easy to learn at a low level, and fun to master at a high level, right? And what does it mean to be easy to learn? It means that the player can easily access those features which really define the game, right? For a fighting game, you have to be able to jump, to perform attacks, to block and to throw. For an RTS, you have to be able to produce units. So the commands have to be fluid and responsive, and have to be fairly intuitive. The games which are most successful, SF2 or BW or whatever, anybody can pick it up and do a jumping roundhouse or make a battlecruiser given enough time. Say there was a game in which jumping straight up requires a shoryuken motion. That would suck. Just in order to play the game properly, in 2D, you have to learn that. Until you do, you're not playing the game, you're playing the controller. And the game's the fun part, right? That's the object, to play the game. And so at low levels easy to learn and fun to learn are really the same thing. High level really means competition. Playing for the sake of getting better. Getting better for the sake of winning. And when we do that, whether it's soccer or Starcraft or whatever, it's for the feeling of progression, right? The feeling that you're constantly getting better. The desire to get to the top, or at least climb above your peers. And for that there has to be somewhere to progress to. If you reach the top, the fun is gone. And so at high levels hard to learn and fun to learn are really the same thing. But, and this is important, the progression has to be along the same axis as the game. No soccer player wants to have to beat M. Bison before every free kick. No Street Fighter player wants to have to complete a Big Brain Academy exercise to get the best combo. That's not the point. The point is the game. The thing is that you're (I think, lol) presenting this as a casual/hardcore dichotomy like everyone else, when really no such thing exists. The casual game and the hardcore game are, at the hands of the best game designers, the same game. And I think that a seminal example of that would be Street Fighter 2. Or, going back further, Tetris. Or, going back further, chess. And all these games really are easy to learn and hard to master. Let's take BW and SC2. Everyone casts the changes made as being "dumbing down". Are they? I think that unlimited control groups, while making the game easier, make it more fun to learn at low levels and no less fun at high levels. Do you disagree? Then take 12 and make it six. Or take six and make it two. At some point the management of the individual units becomes playing the control group, and not playing war. It's no longer real time strategy, and it takes away from the game. So, at least theoretically, not every change which makes the game easier must be bad. At the same time, I completely agree that the colossus, while being an easier unit to control than the reaver, is much less interesting. It's not like a new player can't make scarabs and shoot them like anyone else, there are just more intricacies to their usage. So that's a bad change. Of course everyone wants something to blame. But this is really just about the game. It's not about hardcore players, and it's not about casual players, its about game design - no qualifiers. There are good design decisions and bad ones. The problem, of course, is that it's hard to always make the right choices, and often companies don't. So in the end, we look back at chess. There's no casual, no hardcore, no angry fanbase, no business intrigue, just 32 pieces and a board. Something about its deceptive simplicity, or maybe its purity of purpose, has drawn people to play it for millennia. Someone out there made a good game, and that's that.
Metaknight is too hax (compared to anyone else). You look at the melee tier list and its constantly changing and you look at the brawl one and metaknight is just in his own class. Every tournament has tons of metaknight players...and since its console there isnt patches so it cant be changed....
melee is amazing.
I agree with a lot of what you say rebo rebo rebo!
On February 21 2011 04:25 ReketSomething wrote: Brawl is bad for another reason.
Metaknight is too hax (compared to anyone else). You look at the melee tier list and its constantly changing and you look at the brawl one and metaknight is just in his own class. Every tournament has tons of metaknight players...and since its console there isnt patches so it cant be changed....
melee is amazing.
I agree with a lot of what you say rebo rebo rebo!
5/5
i disagree
i think brawl is bad because they killed how combos work/and how campy it is. they killed the speed which killed combos. tbh metaknight is beatable, look what happened at apex.
After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
BW rules in Korea. SC2 rules everywhere else.
Korea is quickly being overshadowed by the world-wide domination that SC2 is gaining.
edit: This is not an attempt to belittle BW, it's just the truth. The current state of TL.net is proof.
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
BW rules in Korea. SC2 rules everywhere else.
Korea is quickly being overshadowed by the world-wide domination that SC2 is gaining.
edit: This is not an attempt to belittle BW, it's just the truth. The current state of TL.net is proof.
Your first sentence is true, but does not contradict his post. Your second is partial at best.
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
BW rules in Korea. SC2 rules everywhere else.
Korea is quickly being overshadowed by the world-wide domination that SC2 is gaining.
edit: This is not an attempt to belittle BW, it's just the truth. The current state of TL.net is proof.
Your first sentence is true, but does not contradict his post. Your second is partial at best.
BW "happening" in Korea was a rare occurrence. It was (to the best of my knowledge) the result of Korean culture at the time + the popularity of PC bangs. Blizzard simply got lucky that their game was becoming popular at the same time.
SC2 has much more stable growth and popularity.
I consider the Korean scene to be part of the "elite" since BW never really spread. I don't fully know how BW got so big in Korea but in the grand scheme of things I feel like it is an outlier.
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
BW rules in Korea. SC2 rules everywhere else.
Korea is quickly being overshadowed by the world-wide domination that SC2 is gaining.
edit: This is not an attempt to belittle BW, it's just the truth. The current state of TL.net is proof.
Your first sentence is true, but does not contradict his post. Your second is partial at best.
BW "happening" in Korea was a rare occurrence. It was (to the best of my knowledge) the result of Korean culture at the time + the popularity of PC bangs. Blizzard simply got lucky that their game was becoming popular at the same time.
SC2 has much more stable growth and popularity.
I consider the Korean scene to be part of the "elite" since BW never really spread. I don't fully know how BW got so big in Korea but in the grand scheme of things I feel like it is an outlier.
Games like this are the reason why BW is popular in Korea. Not some "rare occurrence" or "luck".
On February 21 2011 07:13 Backpack wrote: After reading your post, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say as an overall point, so I'm going to talk about something you seem to have left out.
You never mentioned accessibility. In a time where esports are growing, certain things must be sacrificed to blur the line between casual and elite. When you look at games like Counter-Strike, which has/had a very successful competitive scene, you notice that the only people who follow the scene are competitors themselves. The elite group love it but the sponsors don't.
The same can apply to BW. There is the cult following that stays up until 6am to watch OSL, but the average gamer who plays UMS maps and the campaign doesn't even know the PL exists. If they happened to play multiplayer and got destroyed by reaver micro, they wouldnt even know what hit them, they could try their hardest and not even stand a chance. D players didn't feel bad because simply playing on iccup meant that you were already a level ahead of the battle.net players.
This doesn't happen in popular sports though. Every kid played soccer when growing up, they all knew that they could have a good time if they tried their hardest. They could watch the world cup and feel a connection to the players who have devoted their lives to the sport. Professional soccer players don't need fancy tricks (reaver/dropship/goon/muta micro) to appeal to the spectators.
Back to video games. SC2, Streetfighter 4, Brawl, etc. have taken steps toward unifying their players. They sacrifice some of the gameplay in order to provide to the masses. I am only a D+ SSF4 player, but I am able to fully appreciate the professional scene. Same thing with SC2. It is becoming more popular around the world than BW ever could have dreamed of. The pro-scene is heavily connected to the game. Everyone from Bronze to Masters knows about the competitive atmosphere of the game. IdrA, Jinro, and Day9 have become household names. The line between casual play and competitive play has become nonexistent.
This is due to the ease of accessibility. The reason that Husky has 500,000 subscribers is because he takes a game which everyone may not be very good at and makes it entertaining. The bronze players who wouldn't know a build order if it smacked them in the head can tune in to any of the 50+ streams that are always running on TL and enjoy what they are watching. MLG picked up the game after ignoring BW for years because of how popular it is with the casual spectators. There are SC2 tournaments *every-day* because people just can't get enough it. People seem to think that for it to be a successful e-sport it has to have an elite level but thats not true. If they want it to succeed it has to have spectators, it has to appeal to the masses, and it has to draw sponsorship money.
The SC2 scene is booming due to it being both fun and easy to learn, but still hard to master.
To sum it all up: Was BW a better game? Probably. Was BW a more popular game? Not even close. Does SC2 need the extra difficulty in order to succeed as a esport? Definitely not.
edit: grammar
Not to make this SC2 vs BW, but BW does have a very popular proscene, with people who just watch it for fun. So far, the isn't any fan girls for SC2 so I can't see what you mean by BW only having an "elite" following.
BW rules in Korea. SC2 rules everywhere else.
Korea is quickly being overshadowed by the world-wide domination that SC2 is gaining.
edit: This is not an attempt to belittle BW, it's just the truth. The current state of TL.net is proof.
Your first sentence is true, but does not contradict his post. Your second is partial at best.
BW "happening" in Korea was a rare occurrence. It was (to the best of my knowledge) the result of Korean culture at the time + the popularity of PC bangs. Blizzard simply got lucky that their game was becoming popular at the same time.
SC2 has much more stable growth and popularity.
I consider the Korean scene to be part of the "elite" since BW never really spread. I don't fully know how BW got so big in Korea but in the grand scheme of things I feel like it is an outlier.
Games like this are the reason why BW is popular in Korea. Not some "rare occurrence" or "luck".
So Korean people are magically attracted to good starcraft games and nobody else is? Please put a little more thought into your post before you try to debate mine.
It is rare because the circumstances in Korea at the time were perfect for creating an "esport." This didn't happen anywhere else.
EPT
