|
On March 09 2011 16:12 419 wrote:Show nested quote +The first few points you make about the skill required to macro/cast without smartcast/get your dragoons to walk down a ramp/etc all tie back to the #1 thing I dislike about Brood War: namely, that for nearly 100% of the user base (basically everyone who isn't Bisu/Flash/Jaedong/Stork), the game is a contest to see who is better at manipulating a crappy interface. And, for me, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting game- it's about as interesting as a contest to see who is best at doing productive work in CDE/Motif. I doubt many people would think that using CDE is an entertaining experience, but for the vast majority of players, Brood War is just CDE with blood, explosions, and cool sound effects. Yet aren't all RTS games, boiled down to a minimalist core, all about the ability for a player to make the correct mouseclicks and tap the correct keys at the right time?
There's a big difference in being able to make the correct clicks due to "game-logic" decision making and being able to make them because you're better at using a bad interface.
The generalization cuts both ways -- would the optimal game involve zero mechanics and manual dexterity? There are games that fulfill both requirements. However, they aren't real time strategy.
IMO, the closer a strategy game gets to this, the better, even if it's an RTS. Supreme Commander made huge strides in this direction, and this was the primary reason it was popular (otherwise, it certainly wouldn't have been successful enough to have an expansion, given that without the expansion, the game was fairly broken).
And, before the inevitable "just play TB!" argument comes out, there are other advantages to RTS over TBS- the primary one being that RTS requires much less abstraction of mechanics.
As to the games you mention that have superior interface to BW -- which one has had a longer competitive life (if any?).
BW's success had just as much to do with the fact that it was a networkable game with low system requirements at a time when PC Bangs were becoming popular in Korea as it did anything about the game itself. TA wouldn't have fit the bill because it's system requirements were too high at the time, and once BW became popular, there was a snowball's chance in hell of an RTS that wasn't made by Blizz becoming competitive.
|
United Kingdom3685 Posts
On March 09 2011 20:04 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 19:13 DTK-m2 wrote:On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's. For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me. Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well? We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care. Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares? What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool?
And before people freak out, yes this is an extreme case. Then again, maybe it isn't: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125452
|
On March 09 2011 23:39 Sayle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 20:04 Morfildur wrote:On March 09 2011 19:13 DTK-m2 wrote:On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's. For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me. Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well? We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care. Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares? What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it. So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool? And before people freak out, yes this is an extreme case. Then again, maybe it isn't: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125452
Except the "one button" example has exactly one decision point.
Templar micro in BW and SC2 have the exact same number of decision points. It's just that you need twice the clicks to do it in BW.
|
On March 10 2011 00:12 Obscura.304 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 23:39 Sayle wrote:On March 09 2011 20:04 Morfildur wrote:On March 09 2011 19:13 DTK-m2 wrote:On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's. For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me. Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well? We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care. Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares? What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it. So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool? And before people freak out, yes this is an extreme case. Then again, maybe it isn't: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125452 Except the "one button" example has exactly one decision point. Templar micro in BW and SC2 have the exact same number of decision points. It's just that you need twice the clicks to do it in BW.
Obscura.304 explained the core part already for me, but to emphasize my standpoint:
The _decision making_ is the part i like. Using storm is an decision, dropping at 50 places at once is a decision, attacking and retreating are decisions. Yes, i know that for those that know and care, BW looks better because everything is harder to do and _you players_ appreciate that, but do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
I know that muta micro, reaver shuttles, dragoon control, etc. are hard and i appreciate the skill of those using it, but from an observer standpoint there is no difference between someone using storms in BW and someone using storms in SC2, except that the latter looks better thanks to the more modern graphics.
Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
I never really understood the "it's harder, so it's more interesting to watch" standpoint though... so maybe i'm just too stupid or something.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:29 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 00:12 Obscura.304 wrote:On March 09 2011 23:39 Sayle wrote:On March 09 2011 20:04 Morfildur wrote:On March 09 2011 19:13 DTK-m2 wrote:On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's. For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me. Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well? We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care. Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares? What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it. So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool? And before people freak out, yes this is an extreme case. Then again, maybe it isn't: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125452 Except the "one button" example has exactly one decision point. Templar micro in BW and SC2 have the exact same number of decision points. It's just that you need twice the clicks to do it in BW. do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
Yes of course it plays a factor. Part of the reason sport is so great is because you can't do that. The bigger the gap between the viewer and the player, the more impressive it is.
It's not the only thing that makes the game exciting to watch, and for many it's probably not even the biggest, but it's still important.
|
United Kingdom3685 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:29 Morfildur wrote:
Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
Neither. Why would I watch something that I don't understand? That's the reason I wasn't a big fan of American football, for example, even though I went to high school in the US. I didn't understand the game, so I couldn't appreciate great plays.
When I find something that I am interested in and want to watch, I learn everything I possibly can about it. If it's not too expensive/difficult, I also try to do it myself to at least a competitive amateur level. For me, that's how I can truly appreciate any activity, whether it's a video game, sport, instrument, or something else.
If I wanted to just see pretty graphics and explosions, I'd watch a Michael Bay movie.
Edit: And of course, Chill is absolutely right. You talked about there being the same number of "decision points" to storm in both games. So does that mean watching Federer play tennis is the same as watching some random amateur? They both made the same number of "decision points" when choosing what kind of shots to take.
|
I reckon that 7 months after SC1 was released that most of the advanced micro tricks shown today were nowhere in site. I know people say this all the time but be patient SC2 is young. Will it ever have as much and as exciting micro as BW? unlikely. Will it ever have new tricks and more exciting micro then being shown currently? Most definetly.
I also think that blizzard is aware of some concerns and that we will see changes come expansions. Whether it be new units or new abilities or both, i think(hope) blizzard recognizes the need and will try their best. But just like with my first paragraph, we can only just be patient and wait.
Im not sure if you have seen it but their is a new a custom map for SC2 where the unit radius' are enlarged to avoid such things as balls of death. I think it looks really good and would love if blizzard looked into that, but i wont get my hopes up. It would likely involve rebalancing alot but i think it would be worth it.
Anyways my two cents on sc2 fans: you cannot be upset for people choosing the better looking, more friendly/casual game. Lets say i was interested in playing BW right now. Just starting up for the first time. Now personally i dont have a whole lot of time to play, but i enjoy to follow the scene. If i were to go to BW i would likely get demolished for months as most people who still play BW will be rather good for a newbie to face. As someone who does not have alot of time to play, that is not very enticing. BW may very well be a much better game but id rather use what time i have to play a game i can have fun winning and learning. It is more than comparing game to game (if you insist on comparing them) its also about comparing communities, casual friendliness, e-sports scene, etc. All of which i would debate that SC2 is better at, and all help increase the experience of the game.
|
Because this is devolving into a 'BW takes more skill then SC2, how can you like something that takes less skill'-argument, consider this:
Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are:
1) Hitting a baseball
2) Driving a racecar
3) Polevaulting
Yet, not everyone is a baseball fan, pretty much half the world hates everything about Formula-1 and 15 people worldwide watch polevaulting. People become a fan of a certain sport for different reasons, the skill required to play a sport only plays a minor role. You become a fan because you play yourself on an amateur level, because you really like how a certain player is on the field, or for all I care, because you really like the team shirt.
I watch tennis because I really like Federer/Djoko and a few others.
I watch the champions league because I root for barca.
I watch the superbowl because of all the over-american anthics and because it's weird as hell.
I watch the tour de france because it's relaxing to sit on a couch and watch people drive around scenic castles and stuff like that.
I don't watch any athletics, yet I am sure it takes tremendous skill, and the same goes for figureskating, chess, etc.
In the end, do you really have to justify what sport you follow and why you're doing it?
|
United Kingdom3685 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:43 Derez wrote:
Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are:
1) Hitting a baseball
2) Driving a racecar
3) Polevaulting
Uh...what? Seriously, where did you get that from? O_o
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:43 Derez wrote:
Because this is devolving into a 'BW takes more skill then SC2, how can you like something that takes less skill'-argument, consider this:
Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are:
1) Hitting a baseball
2) Driving a racecar
3) Polevaulting
Yet, not everyone is a baseball fan, pretty much half the world hates everything about Formula-1 and 15 people worldwide watch polevaulting. People become a fan of a certain sport for different reasons, the skill required to play a sport only plays a minor role. You become a fan because you play yourself on an amateur level, because you really like how a certain player is on the field, or for all I care, because you really like the team shirt.
I watch tennis because I really like Federer/Djoko and a few others.
I watch the champions league because I root for barca.
I watch the superbowl because of all the over-american anthics and because it's weird as hell.
I watch the tour de france because it's relaxing to sit on a couch and watch people drive around scenic castles and stuff like that.
I don't watch any athletics, yet I am sure it takes tremendous skill, and the same goes for figureskating, chess, etc.
In the end, do you really have to justify what sport you follow and why you're doing it?
Just to clarify , these mechanics is not the sole reason as Chill stated why some people like me prefer BW over SC2 however it is however one of the reasons. Do I feel like I have to justify why I like BW?Yes, why? because I am tired of all the posts from close-minded people who just bash (from both sides) and have no understanding of why one would like each of the games more then the other.
|
I'd like to add another reason why harder mechanics are better for the spectator :
if everybody in the top 200 protoss has the same level in casting storm, where is the wow factor ?
In bw, very few people were able to achieve "jangbi storm". In sc2, I doubt there is much difference between good players, and I haven't seen it in any case.
Plus, in the case of storm, it forces blizzard to nerf it, which make the whole battle between the stormer and storm dodging much less spectacular and important.
I'd even argue that the best way to solve the problems forcefield seem to pose would be to remove smart casting, but hey, that's my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, if you're really interested only in strategy, you should probably watch bw over sc2 : strategy are much more developped and complex in bw at the moment (if you're not convinced, you probably need to read a few Ver posts for instance). Strategy is probably the biggest reason I still watch BW four years after.
|
On March 10 2011 00:29 Morfildur wrote:
Obscura.304 explained the core part already for me, but to emphasize my standpoint:
The _decision making_ is the part i like. Using storm is an decision, dropping at 50 places at once is a decision, attacking and retreating are decisions. Yes, i know that for those that know and care, BW looks better because everything is harder to do and _you players_ appreciate that, but do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
I know that muta micro, reaver shuttles, dragoon control, etc. are hard and i appreciate the skill of those using it, but from an observer standpoint there is no difference between someone using storms in BW and someone using storms in SC2, except that the latter looks better thanks to the more modern graphics.
Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
I never really understood the "it's harder, so it's more interesting to watch" standpoint though... so maybe i'm just too stupid or something.
There is a huge difference if I watch SCII and SCBW. For that matter any 'newer' RTS title and SCBW. Even without knowing how hard it is. SCBW may be such a good thing to watch, especially if you have no clue about the game flow. Overview is better with horribly outdated and simple grafic. It's way cleaner and it lacks of effects. The better grafics get, the more grafics are used to show effects that could be designed way simpler, the harder it gets to understand whats going on. Take Terrans in SCBW: you know what unit can do what because you can related those units at least remotely to reality. Even if shit goes down there are only a few exceptions where the overview gets lost. I can see that huge muta fights are fucking hard to judge if more than 50 units are involved. The other one would be a mass carrier attack. But still, it's very easy to see who wins a fight seconds after the fight begun. I started BW with replays and had a good overview what was happening despite it being so minimalistic and tiny. In addition, I'm colorblind. The terrain still doesn't confuse me at all (exception would be ice) - I can still see everything without being confused. Mirror matches are easy to judge, once the observer switches to red / yellow. There are no two huge balls of shit clashing into each other.
Doesn't matter which new title I look at: those are mostly full of effects. It takes way longer to get a decent idea of what is going on, which does what and so on. I never had those problems with BW. I didn't even get what was going on after my 50 matches of SCII. Like I still have problems following mirror matches there. I admit that I'm a giant noob in that game, I never played it seriously and never even tried to, simply due to the fact that it does not interest me at all. No hard feelings for people who like all that shiny explosion stuff or the fancy micro.
On March 10 2011 01:13 TheAura wrote:
I reckon that 7 months after SC1 was released that most of the advanced micro tricks shown today were nowhere in site. I know people say this all the time but be patient SC2 is young. Will it ever have as much and as exciting micro as BW? unlikely. Will it ever have new tricks and more exciting micro then being shown currently? Most definetly.
This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
What really pisses me off everytime such a standard discussion starts: most SCII players talk as if they ever played SCBW seriously, and knew what is the fun part about SCBW. Dude, I really don't care why you like your game, I really don't care what you think is better. I won't declare you to "idiot of the year", only because you have a different taste. I wouldn't flame you for being a soccer fan if I was to play basket ball. Let's follow this logic. I don't go over to another sport and declare that their scene is overaged, conservative and that they should change the rules, add bigger goals for example and add twenty players, so they don't have to run that fast. I don't tell them that their opinions of having fun are stupid.
I like the way SCBW is, I don't need additions. If I needed them I'd changed the title. Simple truth is, SCBW is perfect for me. Don't tell me that the Interface is crap, I know that already. Guess what, that is a part that motivates me. I can always tell what detail I have to train. The training is the challenge for me. The harder a move is, the more fun I have trying to learn it and the happier I will be, once I actually make it happen. If you don't like that idea, well then it's ok. I guess SCII offers a lot of fun, to watch, to play. Not for me. Accept that.
Futhermore: stop telling new players to not try out SCBW. SCBW makes fun, even on a low skill level. If you deny an older game new users, simply because you're not having fun with that older game, then let it go. If you're really convinced that the other game sucks, than those curious players will return and stay with SCII. No harm done. No need to fight over them.
To the players that tried out BW and didn't like it: not our fault, we did not design the game, we did not let you win because we're not wanting new players. If it isn't fun, accept it. Stop blaming the game for having a hard interface or an extremely competetive scene. It's simply you that had not had any fun. It's not a shame if you didn't like it. Makes you not a loser, nor a winner that found out that this game is overrated. It is not. It is a game. Switch if you have more fun elsewhere. Don't be a bad loser and flame those, who have fun. If you still troll around about that, you're not better than a child that isn't allowed to eat candy when it wants to.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
I don't understand your post. It's 50 lines of "I like SCBW - deal with it." Who are you talking to?
Edit: And after you have 10 lines explaining that you don't care what other people think or what their preferences are, you go on a 40 line tyrade explaining what you think and what your preferences are.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Edit 2: And the post you're quoting isn't even related to your post. What the fuck. Micro didn't really even exist after 7 months in BW, and there will be a lot of tricks developed in the future of SC2, as in all games. I agree with the quoted post in its entirety.
|
This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
it sure took awhile for people to even micro split marines away from banelings, and that is rather straightforward.
Im not saying that is going to take years, but give it more time than 7 months before you claim that there is nothing more to learn about microing in SC2.
It is definetly evolving way faster than any RTS before, the fact is though, especially with 2 expansions coming out, that there will be plenty of time and room for micro to evolve.
I dont know much about how SC was before BW, but im sure BW improved it alot. So shall HoTS the other expansion.
|
On March 09 2011 09:11 supernovamaniac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote:
Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings. No. It's not easy. With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back. Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map. One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
I got into SC/SC2 right when the SC2 first look videos came out, and I started watching a lot of BW matches right then. It was entertaining, and I liked it, but as soon as the SC2 beta came out and people started streaming, and tournaments started going, I immediately jumped to that as it was much clearer what was going on and people were coming up with something new and exciting every single week it seemed. I tried to go back to watching BW, but after watching just a little SC2, i could not go back. I'd never played either, so what you called amazing micro/macro was just "normal" to me. By the same token, what happened in SC2 was "normal" to me, but the level of play quickly started ramping up, and seeing games like Kiwi's amazing 5 blink stalkers vs an entire base game was just amazing and jaw-dropping to me, because noone had really done anything like that before.
It all basically comes down too......what do you feel like following? I tried to get into BW after SC2, but it just didn't click to me. It's just meh. It looks like crap, and I've played too many RTS games to go back to a 1998 UI. SC2 has plenty of drama for me, as well as an untouchable skill ceiling.
I'm also going to say that some of your pure nostalgiac bias shines brightly in this thread. Saying things like you prefer to know less as a spectator.........that knowing everything that is going on is bad. ROFL? Then just turn your video off and listen to the game based on sound. YOu'll hear that intense battle going on, storms going off, units dying, WHO IS GOING TO COME OUT AHEAD??!?!?!? BS. More information is more exciting. It lets you think on the same level as the player.
Edit: also, I will fully agree that SC2 is being played at an extremely crappy level right now. Even watching the "best" the game has to offer, and even with all the advantages of a much better UI, and easier mechanics, they still make an epic ton of mistakes that even I as a casual observer can pick out. So give it more time before trashing it for not being exciting.
P.S. Colossi MUST go.
|
On March 10 2011 02:20 TheAura wrote:Show nested quote +This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
it sure took awhile for people to even micro split marines away from banelings, and that is rather straightforward. Im not saying that is going to take years, but give it more time than 7 months before you claim that there is nothing more to learn about microing in SC2. It is definetly evolving way faster than any RTS before, the fact is though, especially with 2 expansions coming out, that there will be plenty of time and room for micro to evolve. I dont know much about how SC was before BW, but im sure BW improved it alot. So shall HoTS the other expansion.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know.
ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
To the guy above, your first paragraph were pretty good and convincing and ok, why did you write the last one ?
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On March 10 2011 02:32 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 09:11 supernovamaniac wrote:On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote:
Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings. No. It's not easy. With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back. Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map. One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges. And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
It's presumed that would be the job of commentator to explain it to you.
|
If I may add 2 more of my cents to this discussion:
I think it's all a matter of opinion.
I may enjoy Coke, but may hate Pepsi. Pepsi fans can try their hardest to describe to me how wonderful Pepsi is and how disgusting Coke is, yet that doesn't stop me from flat out enjoying Coke. (fyi, I'm actually a Dr Pepper fan lol).
The taste buds of one person differ greatly from the taste buds of others. Likewise, the game preferences of one player will often differ from those of another player, and oftentimes these preferences just simply can't be put into proper words. SC2/BW fans can try their hardest to convince BW/SC2 fans why their game is better, but these arguments are all in vain until the fans actually try the games out for themselves and judge them from their own experiences.
I enjoy both games for different reasons. I enjoy BW for its legacy, and I enjoy SC2 for its potential. SC2 is obviously trying to become an e-sport without placing too much of an emphasis on mechanical skill, and it is possible that it may succeed despite people claiming that it's "dumbed down."
|
On March 10 2011 02:33 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 02:32 Sm3agol wrote:On March 09 2011 09:11 supernovamaniac wrote:On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote:
Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings. No. It's not easy. With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back. Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map. One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges. And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand. It's presumed that would be the job of commentator to explain it to you.
But I have had it explained. Then I rewatched it. Still means nothing to me because I haven't played the game.
|
Eh, I didn't really appreciate watching any SC2 games until I started playing it myself. Whenever I watch vods of RTS games I've never played before I will almost never be impressed. I'll admit that I still definitely enjoy watching BW vods more and it has to do with both the fact that I've had much longer relationship with the game and also due to the fact that the game is more complete. SC2 isn't complete yet as it's just a given that the future expansions with add in more things. Because of this I just can't really blow away SC2 just because I still think BW is better. The game isn't complete yet. I don't play games as much as I used to at all though, so it's likely that I'll never get into SC2 the way I did with BW - life is too busy now.
I do think that SC2 has the capability to become just as great as BW did, but even if it does, I probably won't be around and/or be uninterested because I don't play much games anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
