|
On April 26 2011 14:21 BLinD-RawR wrote:
expansions will make SC2 interesting...I'll believe in that...like I said before the original game is for Blizzard to reel people in.Expansions add depth.all in all I do think that eventually SC2 can do BW proud,but right now I don't care because it isn't doing so.
I think so too.
Sc2 isn't close to Bw in any aspect of the game right now.
But Sc2 is a solid game afterall.
It's already quite balanced, and we can clearly evaluate what's missing to make it
closer to what bw made exciting.
We have 2 add-ons to come, and if blizzard does its job right, Sc2 can become really great.
So i'm looking forward in hoping they do it right with the add-ons (they did it right for sc1, and for wc3, so i'm positive)
|
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote:
Found this gem comment in the source article lol.
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST
SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans.
Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open."
Difference being that BW patches added content whilst SC2 patches take away content.
Two protoss abilities removed so far in SC2 , nothing really added to compensate for the reduction in options.
|
Well as a previous poster said it's not like those patches even balanced the game. Intelligent map design did.
|
i have a hard time understanding that this guy is the same guy who designed bw.
|
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote:
People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives.
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ).
Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar.
I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans.
There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc...
All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike.
edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game.
I'm using this post as a starting point, I'm not directing it specifically to you and you make some very good points. Perhaps I can encourage objective discussion about what we've discovered here?
I tried to address what I perceive to be the reasoning behind how SC2 was designed in my post, and you are correct in thinking that SC2 was never meant to deliver a new and more challenging experience to the serious Broodwar player. The core-audience of die-hard SC1/Broodwar fans is just too small to reliably create a new community around the new game.
By making the game more accessible to new players, you are encouraging a larger player-base for the game, and thus promoting the idea of competing who is the best. When the player-base is large enough, it becomes statistically more probable that players reach more intricate levels of play working with what they have. This is why top Broodwar players today have reached a point far beyond what games like age of empires or C&C can offer. The game's popularity in Korea is what allowed for the game to be explored and gameplay to develop. It is why Broodwar is still considered the most balanced RTS ever made; because the community took it to themselves to create that balance through exploring every intricacy in the game. This led to the community created starleagues and competitions we see today.
If Blizzard had simply released Broodwar as it is now but with graphical updates in the West instead of SC2, the game would likely never have taken off, even though it would be the same Broodwar we cherish and love. Broodwar's UI and unit AI are pretty alien to many new players, and they discourage new players from picking up the game. By making SC2 easier to pick up, Blizzard is promoting the creation of a large player-based community around the game. They are making it easier for C&C players, Age of Empires players, WC3 players, SupCom players, CoH players, DoW players and Broodwar players to pick up the new game and begin from an even starting point. This is not unlike what has happened with the fighting game community when Street Fighter 4 or Mortal Kombat 9 were released. Known US Street Fighter players like Combofiend and Alex Valle, and Tekken players like RiP have picked up MK9, despite it being very different from the games they've made a name for themselves in. The new game has brought two previously almost hostile communities closer together and reinvigorated the 2D MK fan-base. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Doing this is also relative to Blizzard's interests, because it dramatically increases unit sales as opposed to making a hard game for hardcore enthusiasts. The only people who lose out on SC2's design are the die-hard Broodwar fans who expected another game like Broodwar. They represent a vast minority in the potential player-base of the game so it makes little financial sense to cater entirely to that audience at the expense of everyone else. The reasons that make a game fun are subjective, and not objective, as we would often like to believe. By researching what has made popular games successful in the west, Blizzard is looking to make a game that a lot of people like. That's likely why they brought Dustin Browder to the project in the first place. So yes, Blizzard is doing this for the money. That's what it comes down to, and you can't really fault them for doing so. They are, after all, a public company that has to answer to their stockholders. As a result, SC2 is unlikely to undergo dramatic changes with the two upcoming expansion packs. It's a shame, but unless there's a community metagame-shift away from unit blobs, we're unlikely to see anything change with the x-packs. We're stuck with what we get, and if we don't like SC2 there is nothing that prevents us from playing BW.
The concerns you have about SC2's engine are very valid, but there are good reasons for their implementation. Supply is capped at 200/200 because of how SC2's unit AI works. Specifically, every unit has its own advanced AI that has to be processed in real time. This is incredibly taxing on the CPU. Just because a game doesn't look like Crysis 2 on max settings doesn't mean it can't run heavy. The 200/200 supply cap is implemented because it lowers the game's system requirements. This again promotes a larges player-base, because not everyone has a powerful computer to play games on. It also shares similarities with Broodwar's system, so it has nostalgic value, and it's a very common concept to have a hard limit of how many units you can make over the course of any RTS game. Having a higher supply cap would further encourage turtling and a lower supply cap would take away from multitasking and managing an economy. The supply cap is relatively low to keep game lengths reasonable as well. Again, this is likely to promote using the game as a broadcasted e-sport.
Starcraft 2 likely features only a few resources to make it simpler to understand from both a player and a spectator viewpoint. The extreme example of a game that's heavy in resource management is Earth 2150, which features an absurd amount of resources and unit customization. Another example would be the Civilization series, which is designed purely for the hard-core audience. When resources begin to have overlapping purposes (using one common and either of two rare resources to build very similar units, or gaining control of iron and copper in Civ), they generally create an overly complicated situation for the players to objective asses. "I see my opponent is getting Iridium and Noble gases, is he making mechas or tanks? Do I have to prepare for hovercraft? What about air support or artillery?" This gives the game too much variance, and allows lesser skilled players to beat more skilled players due to the lack of knowledge of the enemy's army composition by the abundance of the options he has. Having two resources gives the option of being able to build powerful technical units with a rare resource and lots of weaker simple units with the common resource. It's the simplest way to differentiate between units beyond just having the technical units cost an absurd amount of resources. Having shallow rules for a game doesn't necessarily make it bad, just look at traditional sports and games like Soccer, Baseball or even Poker that are massively popular around the world, have simple rules, and yet have very intricate strategy that make them very much skill based as opposed to say, power-lifting which is mostly dependent on simple strength (but also requires a good technique).
Starcraft 2's engine is actually much more powerful than Broodwar's on any objective scale. SC2's cutscenes are, for the most part, rendered in real time within the engine. Dumb unit AI has been replicated via the SC2:BW mod that has gained some popularity on battlenet 2.0. The official mod "starjeweled" shows that the engine can be used for a very different purpose than just for an RTS game. There was recent controversy about someone using the engine to create an MMO based on Starcraft. The engine has massive potential for the modding community, and users are given good tools to make use of it. That being said there are some things about BW that the SC2 engine cannot replicate, but those are generally due to quirks in BW's older game engine which was designed on different limitations than the SC2 engine. The many micro tricks we know and love are mostly based on quirks that weren't intended at all in the first place, like patrol micro and muta-stacking. Because it's hard to identify what caused that behavior in the first place, it's hard to replicate it exactly as it was in a newer engine. Many intricate engine based tricks are also hard for spectators to follow, so they actually discourage casual viewers from tuning into a broadcast a second time.
As for the actual way SC2 games play out, I can only say that it's very different from Broodwar. Whether you like SC2's gameplay or not is very subjective and nobody is forcing you to play SC2 over Broodwar. The fact remains that they are both good games and that the popularity of either game indirectly benefits the other. While Broodwar's foreign player-base has taken quite a hit, SC2's release has also introduced many new players from other communities to Starcraft's core concepts and to the BW Korean pro scene. TL being a shared community is a great example of promoting exposure to both games. A casual SC2 viewer/player just might open up a BW stream every once in a while out of curiosity and take notice to how great BW actually is and what they've been missing this whole time. By the same account, many BW players can follow SC2 and see if the game evolves in a direction they like and would consider playing. Personally, I find it exciting to watch any game finals when lots of money is on the line, be it SSF4/MK9/MvC3/SC:BW/SC2/Quake Live/Counter-Strike/TF2 or what have you.
Sorry for ranting on a second time. I can't help but feel that SC2 is a resource and great possibility for Broodwar, and I hate to see the communities split due to disappointment and elitism from both sides. While I don't agree with every decision Blizzard has made during SC2's development, I feel it important for the fans to understand the reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. I absolutely adore BW, and SC2 has my full attention as BW's spiritual successor. I would love for both games to be extremely popular, be it in Korea or in the West.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
still waiting to see when the magic happens in sc2.
seriously they could have made it so much better.
|
Personally, I think a group of people from TL would've done a better job with sc2 design wise. And don't tell me we're just gamers so we don't really have an idea what it takes to design a good game - gamers designed CS, DotA and its clones, as well as made Armies of Exigo, a game that captures the spirit of BW better than SC2 itself imo.
|
On April 26 2011 18:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote:
Found this gem comment in the source article lol.
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST
SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans.
Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open."
Difference being that BW patches added content whilst SC2 patches take away content. Two protoss abilities removed so far in SC2 , nothing really added to compensate for the reduction in options.
speed boost for a void ray isnt an ability, its not a spell and its not something you have to use during the gameplay. it was also clearly broken, protoss having an air to air unit that cant be outrun, cant be outgunned, and got better as the numbers in the fight went up.
as for the amulet, thats been done to death but if you think templar are weak now, its gonna take more than 1 person to change your mind.
they havent removed any abilities, just some upgrades, and they will be adding more with the expansions. people should remember sc2 isnt a broodwar expansion, its a whole new game. maybe you just arent going to like it as much as you like broodwar.
|
Reading Broodwar fans writing about how superior it is in every single aspects makes me giggle. I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason. You're glorifying the game a bit too much imo.
(I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...)
|
On April 26 2011 20:57 maybenexttime wrote:
Personally, I think a group of people from TL would've done a better job with sc2 design wise. And don't tell me we're just gamers so we don't really have an idea what it takes to design a good game - gamers designed CS, DotA and its clones, as well as made Armies of Exigo, a game that captures the spirit of BW better than SC2 itself imo.
The problem with the Armies of Exigo example is that it was not very well received by the mainstream gaming media, getting a 69 on Metacritic.
Granted, the mainstream gaming media may not be the best indicator of a great game (as shown by CoD and Halo being so critically acclaimed). However, many reviewers did find Armies of Exigo to be too derivative off of previous RTS games, especially in regards to the overall design, interface, and mechanics. As a result, perhaps an exact replica of BW and its mechanics may not be the best decision when trying to get the critical praise of the mainstream gaming media and the accompanying extra sales.
And herein lies the big problem with BW and SC2. SC2 changed enough obvious things to differentiate itself from BW and seem like an improvement, which pleased all the mainstream critics. However, the critics were not the gamers who recognized the subtleties of BW that were missing in SC2, so there is a distinct disconnect between what BW fans want and what the mainstream gaming media expect.
Consequently, I think SC2 was put into a very bad position in terms of game design. Trying to straddle the gap between mainstream gaming and e-sports is extremely difficult. On one hand, I think Browder could've made a fantastic non-esport game. He had some very nice ideas for fun units, though those ideas are terrible from a balance and competitive perspective. On the other hand, Blizzard's idea of making the game appropriate for e-sports is to achieve perfect balance for an absolutely even playing field at all levels, even if it means nerfing and watering down the game to oblivion. As a result, I think they cut corners by not including BW's old micro tricks and taking away newly discovered tricks so that the game would be easier to balance without all the "unfair" micro advantages muddying up their numbers.
Sometimes, I wish Blizzard would assign Browder a different RTS project or perhaps even aim for SC2 not being an e-sport. The guy can make really fun games and is a great game designer, but that is not enough when trying to create the successor to BW.
|
FrozenSolid i think it's easy to see WHY Blizzard have made the choices they have. But why do we have to like it because of that? And just jumping to 'elitism' as the reason. If we don't like the game.. we don't like it. It's never going to be like the game we are looking for with things like difficult macro, it's pretty clear by now.
Plus you say things that are just wrong. The AI is hardly advanced enough to be extremely taxing on the CPU. A few people who are experienced with AI on here can probably back me up on this. The units are hardly even making many decisions, i don't think moving in a big ball and pathfinding to be able to attack is particularly advanced at all, it's definitely NOT the reason for the 200/200 supply cap. When it's in 3D and units can fit tightly together like they do it's not like the units are making complex decisions all the time that need tons of calculation.
Another thing you say, muta-stacking. It's not hard to identify why it works at all. Every single unit works that way, and it's even intended and deliberate because of the 'magic box' for moving units in formation. When 1 unit is not near, all units stack close together. When they are close, they go in formation. I don't know why people refer to muta-stacking as some kind of crazy bug that no one has any idea why it happens when its actually very simple.
If you just make up things like this it makes people question everything else you say too. You used a whole lot of words with hardly any conclusion drawn from it. Everyone here is perfectly aware of the audience Blizzard is trying to capture, but this is an eSports and competitive gaming focused site and we are giving our perspective on things. We don't need to be reminded constantly that Blizzard is trying to make money and appeal to a wide audience, things like removing ladder losses showing is blatant actions which show this.
|
On April 26 2011 21:14 turdburgler wrote:
speed boost for a void ray isnt an ability, its not a spell and its not something you have to use during the gameplay. it was also clearly broken, protoss having an air to air unit that cant be outrun, cant be outgunned, and got better as the numbers in the fight went up.
as for the amulet, thats been done to death but if you think templar are weak now, its gonna take more than 1 person to change your mind.
they havent removed any abilities, just some upgrades, and they will be adding more with the expansions. people should remember sc2 isnt a broodwar expansion, its a whole new game. maybe you just arent going to like it as much as you like broodwar.
These expansions are really going to have to be something special to rescue SC2 melee (i enjoy the UMS SC2 maps so i don't feel disappointed by my purchase like some folks) ; unit design would have to take a completely different tack to SC2 vanilla with imaginative units that make the game more interesting than blob vs blob.Seriously units like Thor , Roach , Immortal etc these units are sooooo bland.
My overall point was with each BW patch you could see progress being made , with every SC2 patch it seems the game is going backwards.Supply depot needed before barracks? Making reapers unviable? I never said templar were weak my main issue is nerfing templar just makes PvT even more of a colossus fest.The game is going backwards.
|
On April 26 2011 21:25 butchji wrote:
Reading Broodwar fans writing about how superior it is in every single aspects makes me giggle. I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason. You're glorifying the game a bit too much imo.
(I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...)
You do realise you are in the Brood War forums yes? Is it hard to comprehend why people praise BW and prefer it over some random other game in a Brood War forums?
@turdburgler
Blizz's style of "balancing" games is.. ignorant, if i may say so.. Removing stuffs from the game obviously gonna harshly affect balance.. Tweaking a few numbers intelligently, however, wont, not to mention its easier to do as well.. Supply -> Barracks was stupid, Reaper nerf is stupid as well (do people still use Reaper now? i dont follow the scene so i dont know), a bunch of other stuffs.
Back in WC3, wasnt it simply Elf, Human, Orc taking turn to be overpowered, and Undead trudging behind all the time?.. Their lack of insight of their own games is astounding, and disappointing..
|
Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 21:30 infinity2k9 wrote:
FrozenSolid i think it's easy to see WHY Blizzard have made the choices they have. But why do we have to like it because of that? And just jumping to 'elitism' as the reason. If we don't like the game.. we don't like it. It's never going to be like the game we are looking for with things like difficult macro, it's pretty clear by now.
Plus you say things that are just wrong. The AI is hardly advanced enough to be extremely taxing on the CPU. A few people who are experienced with AI on here can probably back me up on this. The units are hardly even making many decisions, i don't think moving in a big ball and pathfinding to be able to attack is particularly advanced at all, it's definitely NOT the reason for the 200/200 supply cap. When it's in 3D and units can fit tightly together like they do it's not like the units are making complex decisions all the time that need tons of calculation.
Another thing you say, muta-stacking. It's not hard to identify why it works at all. Every single unit works that way, and it's even intended and deliberate because of the 'magic box' for moving units in formation. When 1 unit is not near, all units stack close together. When they are close, they go in formation. I don't know why people refer to muta-stacking as some kind of crazy bug that no one has any idea why it happens when its actually very simple.
If you just make up things like this it makes people question everything else you say too. You used a whole lot of words with hardly any conclusion drawn from it.
Don't get me wrong, you don't have to like Blizzard or SC2 at all and I'm not advocating that you should. I simply think that people should be fully aware of what was going on so they can make informed decisions for themselves.
Broodwar and SC2 "elitism" is what I see as the two sides being completely ignorant of each other and actively trying to disregard all objective discussion about either game. A comment about SC2 being "superior in every way" has no place what so ever in a Broodwar discussion, and the same goes for Broodwar comments about SC2 inferiority in an SC2 thread. The two games present opportunities for each other, so it doesn't make sense for them to alienate themselves from each other.
I actually made the same point you did by saying that SC2 is unlikely to change in a dramatic fashion. The macro mechanics of that game have become standard already with the game's release, and they will not undergo significant changes. SC2 gameplay will not change, but the metagame and unit control could. If SC2's implementation of macro is something you don't enjoy, you don't have to play or watch the game, and nobody can fault you for that. I agree that BW has a much more complex macro system.
When I say "advanced AI" I don't mean intelligent AI or well coded AI. I'm just making a statement as to how much SC2 actually requires from a computer to run at high FPS. A processor like an Intel Core2Duo E8800 (which was a mainstream/high-end processor a couple of years ago) has a hard time handling SC2 late game scenarios on high or even medium settings and maintaining 30 fps+ during large scale battles. If you play 4v4, the problem is even more highlighted. SC2 requires a powerful CPU to run because of how the unit behavior and physics engine is implemented. If the game had to process 50% more units per player, a 4v4 scenario would be really heavy on any older CPU, despite how intelligent the AI actually is.
I'm basing this on empirical evidence to game performance on known hardware, I don't claim to know how the SC2 unit AI functions on a fundamental level. That evidence suggests that the unit cap is an integral part of the system requirements for the game. Regardless, that was only 1 of the points I made for the 200/200 supply cap, and I don't claim to know exactly why it was implemented. I'm just making educated guesses based on the information I have available.
Whenever I'm referring to muta-staking, I mean in BW. SC2 certainly does have some micro tricks like the "Viking flower", but nothing on the level of Broodwar. I was mostly using it as an example of something that was not intended to happen in Broodwar actually becoming an important part of the metagame. Yet, imagine you're completely new to RTS. If you see muta-stacking for the first time without seeing "normally controlled" mutas, you're going to be a little bit confused when one muta suddenly splits into 11 or when it takes a substantial amount of medic marine to kill what seems to be just one really deformed muta. That's probably why SC2 doesn't have perfect unit-stacking, to make it easier to understand for new players or casual viewers. This isn't a hard concept to understand in BW because the viewership is already there, but it is detrimental for a game that's trying to bring in a lot more new people and to make it big in countries where BW failed to create a big community. Perhaps I failed to make my point clear.
I'm not trying to be annoying or condescending in any way. I'm just trying to promote intelligent discussion on a topic that is very controversial, instead of having it be full of slander toward either game. You're free to ignore me and everything I post, but you should know that I have good intentions regardless. I appreciate that the BW selection of TL is more in favor of BW than SC2, and I feel the BW community makes up a very important part of TL. Even so, it always makes sense to have a Devil's advocate in any discussion regardless of how you feel about it.
|
On April 26 2011 07:39 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:54 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW?
Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback. What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport.
The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc.
|
On April 26 2011 22:15 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 07:39 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:54 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW?
Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback. What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport. The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc.
That's why diamondback, vultures and science vessel are not in the game ?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:15 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 07:39 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:54 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW?
Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback. What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport. The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc.
so that is why siege tanks are different in the singleplayer then they are in the multiplayer?
Marauders don't have stim in the singleplayer storyline either, but they do in the mutiplayer.\
Moreover, Banshees do aoe damage in the storylines(as can be judged from the singleplayer and the movies) yet banshees do not have aoe in the multiplayer.
|
Oh boy .. SC2 junkies at BW forums spewing their stuff here.
Blind fanboyism on blizzard won't get you nowhere. The community balanced the game out. Making it fun for the community to play the game. Blizzard made poor maps and left balancing the game when they made WC3.
Let's take a look at WC3. How many patches did they made during the RoC? Now proceed to TFT.
Honestly, how many patches did they made? How many 'balances' was made?
Now, how is SC2 doing? .. Right being patched heavily. Leaving the community to catch up with them. The community that made BW what it is now was not really catching up with the game but was catching up with the ladder. They wanted to become a good gamer.
To me, E-sport wasn't about the balance of BW entirely but the people that played the game. That made BW great is SK. People bought copies of BW because they saw it on TV and was amazed by the fact that if you were good in this game you can shine. Or just sit back and watch them high level pros duke it out.
SC2 and Blizzard is heading the wrong way, IMO. It's only a matter of time before they fuck up the game like how they fucked up WC3:TFT.
|
On April 26 2011 21:30 eviltomahawk wrote:
The problem with the Armies of Exigo example is that it was not very well received by the mainstream gaming media, getting a 69 on Metacritic.
Granted, the mainstream gaming media may not be the best indicator of a great game (as shown by CoD and Halo being so critically acclaimed). However, many reviewers did find Armies of Exigo to be too derivative off of previous RTS games, especially in regards to the overall design, interface, and mechanics. As a result, perhaps an exact replica of BW and its mechanics may not be the best decision when trying to get the critical praise of the mainstream gaming media and the accompanying extra sales.
I think the main difference is that Armies of Exigo was not an acclaimed frenchise and it needed to differentiate itself from other games. If you read the reviews, it's apparent that the mainstream critics cannot see past the very obvious surface - most of them claimed AoX is a WC3 copy-cat, when it actually plays nothing like WC3 FFS. ;;
On the other hand, SC2 was, for the most part, praised for "staying true to its roots and sticking to the tried gameplay of the classic." If anything, the critics were complaining that Blizzard didn't change enough, yet it was received extremely well.
And herein lies the big problem with BW and SC2. SC2 changed enough obvious things to differentiate itself from BW and seem like an improvement, which pleased all the mainstream critics. However, the critics were not the gamers who recognized the subtleties of BW that were missing in SC2, so there is a distinct disconnect between what BW fans want and what the mainstream gaming media expect.
The truth is, Blizzard could've changed even more of the obvious things (remember Infestor's Infestation? Disease? How about Drop Pods? Predator? Overseer's Spore Cloud? Burrowing Ultras?) while staying true to the BW gameplay when it comes to the more subtle gameplay aspects, such as defender's advantage, highground advantage, micro tricks/techniques, space controling units, powerful spells (would require removing smart-casting, but that's not necessarily an issue - there was no smart-casting in any CNC games, yet nobody complained, and they're the type of players that want their UI as friendly as possible), micro-based counter system, good maps, etc. SC2 does not need units straight from BW to fix those issues, it doesn't need the exact same micro tricks or techniques either.
I'm certain, that the mainstream media wouldn't even notice those things. I doubt they'd realize the difference (the gameplay implication) between the BW highground and SC2 highground advantage if it wasn't outright pointed out to them by Blizzard. They'd be completely unaware of subtle micro techniques the competitive players are mastering or how map control works with space controling units.
Consequently, I think SC2 was put into a very bad position in terms of game design. Trying to straddle the gap between mainstream gaming and e-sports is extremely difficult. On one hand, I think Browder could've made a fantastic non-esport game. He had some very nice ideas for fun units, though those ideas are terrible from a balance and competitive perspective. On the other hand, Blizzard's idea of making the game appropriate for e-sports is to achieve perfect balance for an absolutely even playing field at all levels, even if it means nerfing and watering down the game to oblivion. As a result, I think they cut corners by not including BW's old micro tricks and taking away newly discovered tricks so that the game would be easier to balance without all the "unfair" micro advantages muddying up their numbers.
I think Blizzard's balancing philosophy is completely flawed. It's like balancing chess and eventually ending up with only pawns at players' disposal. T___T
An esport has to be fun to both watch and play and only then balanced, not the other way round. Blizzard really got it backwards...
On April 26 2011 21:25 butchji wrote:
Reading Broodwar fans writing about how superior it is in every single aspects makes me giggle. I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason. You're glorifying the game a bit too much imo.
(I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...)
As a matter of fact, I do think that DTs not giving the "your forces are under attack" announcement is good for gameplay, and it's not some twisted logic or glorifying the game you're making it out to be.
The single most characteristic trait of the DT is the fact that it's permanetly cloaked - for all intents and purposes it's a silent assasin. The fact that it's capable killing Probes/Drones without alarming the opponent further emphasizes its role and distinguishes that unit from other cloaked units.
|
On April 26 2011 22:50 maybenexttime wrote:
The truth is, Blizzard could've changed even more of the obvious things while staying true to the BW gameplay when it comes to the more subtle gameplay aspects, such as defender's advantage, highground advantage, micro tricks/techniques, space controling units, powerful spells (would require removing smart-casting, but that's not necessarily an issue - there was no smart-casting in any CNC games, yet nobody complained, and they're the type of players that want their UI as friendly as possible), micro-based counter system, good maps, etc. SC2 does not need units straight from BW to fix those issues, it doesn't need the exact same micro tricks or techniques either.
I'm certain, that the mainstream media wouldn't even notice those things. I doubt they'd realize the difference (the gameplay implication) between the BW highground and SC2 highground advantage if it wasn't outright pointed out to them by Blizzard. They'd be completely unaware of subtle micro techniques the competitive players are mastering or how map control works with space controling units.
They will .. They do now .. If the dont get it, the casters will give the clueless viewers the idea.
I don't know where do you get the idea that people won't notice the mechanics of the game if they are watching the match. They do, that's why if people saw these mechanics at play, coupled with the hype the casters or commentators, they can make an awesome atmosphere where in viewers would actually get it.
BW didn't made itself what it is now by flashy, shiny stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
