|
Post by crackboy on Aug 3, 2010 20:29:09 GMT -8
So now that the game is out, what do you think of the game? ( and btw if anyone says SC2>BW can go lick my dick, its not true, in fact SC2 is not the successor BW, its just a rts that happens to share the same name, they have no relation whatsoever, anyone who has other thoughts is horribly misguided).
So with that out of the way I would like to say that the game is fun. With automining and stuff makes the game easier, but I like the addition of chrono boost and other new macro mechanics. While it may not add to your awesome apm counter that much, it certainly makes you think more, which is nice. I don't really give two shits about the campaign, besides, the multiplayer is what we bought this game for anyways, so more on that.
The division system is actually pretty good, ranks you with people that can actually not lick dick, and with the addition of the new pro league that's coming up I think that's pretty cool. We all know how much battle.net 2.0 sucks dick so we don't really have to talk about it (thank god Blizzard is fixing it's fucking stupid issues).
I like the units, they all seem pretty awesome, except for the fact some units are useless as fuck (mothership). The mothership is a piece of shit that should just be called the arbiter and give it more speed and less health. That would be awesome. The reaper is actually a really good unit, but only for the fist 2 minutes it's out. After that, it sinks into one of the more useless units categories (Koreans actually always go reapers in TvZ, cause zerg can't do anything about it until ling speed, pretty interesting).
Blizzard maps are an issue, but that'll be quickly fixed sooner or later when we understand the game better for custom map makers to make super awesome maps.
I don't like the new stalker patch, but whatever, I'm biased towards toss. The patch I mean is the one where they now cannot blink up to destructible rocks.
Unsurprisingly only Koreans are good at this game, everyone outside usually sucks ass.
The balancing is actually pretty good, I don't want Bliz to patch for another month or two, I feel that we need to understand the game better.
So complaints:
Well, the game is not good enough. I mean it doesn't have enough drive for people to play it in Korea, its has like a 10 percent playtime in Korea which is fucking terrible. I don't see the scene growing in Korea, which may not be a bad thing, but it certainly makes it so we don't get to watch super awesome Korean's play.
I don't really like how I can pretty much predict what happens during games. What I mean is that games usually go like this:
Initial attack, expand, mass, game over. Very, very gay to watch, but that's not too big of a problem, I think people again just need to know the game better.
I know I don't really care about cinematic's, but more pls?They only actually have like 3, and the rest are using ingame graphics for cutscenes... noooo....
The expansions better not suck dick.
I don't want to QQ too much, so what are your opinions?
|
|
|
Post by fudgikillz on Aug 3, 2010 20:55:37 GMT -8
I'm not that hyped. I would rather spend my money on an arcade stick before this. I will still buy The Game eventually. I can't wait for someone to make dota in it.
Why wouldn't you play the singleplayer? Looks pretty dope.
Multiplayer looks good I guess... The Game is still all about apm which is a shame. It would be nice to see an rts that is actually about strategy.
Me vs you in sc -> We scout each other. I contain you and prevent an expansion with bunkers and siege tanks. You delay the inevitable with a few templars. I drop your base with 6 marines. All your workers are dead. I make Battlecruisers for the lulz. GGs
predicted game in sc2 -> You lose.
Just remember, no matter how much you play before you guys get the game, I will still be better than you.
I hope the custom games are good because I don't think the multiplayer will hold us for too long. Prolly just gonna be like sc and we'll stop playing it.
|
|
|
Post by crackboy on Aug 3, 2010 21:27:42 GMT -8
Really? I like the game being all about apm. It shows the difference in between players and n00bs. Real pro's are the one's who can do both. Yeah you'll beat me, but I'll get better!
Ehh, I just don't like single player games that much, too lonely.
There are tons of rts's that have tons of strategy, only thing is that they suck big cocks. APM is good IMO.
The new mapmaking feature makes it hard to make custom games... fuck you Bliz.
It would be a shame if we don't hold on to the multiplayer, I think it holds alot of promise. This is for sure going to be the most played game for like the next 7 years (at least).
I'm not going to stop playing it, 50 bucks for like 20 hours of fun, might as well try to milk out as much as I can.
Btw, how the hell did SC2 get a lower score then Call of Cowards: Modern Hiding 2 and Super Mario Galaxy 2???!!!
|
|
|
Post by fudgikillz on Aug 3, 2010 22:26:52 GMT -8
Super mario galaxy 2 is supposed to be a really good platformer, i dunno about cod... stop sucking blizzard's dick.
It's just my opinion that we should be trying to develop the next chess. The ideal game is one that is simple and easy to pickup, but hard to master. I think that in that sense no rts game is ideal.
Take the way valve approaches fps on pc.
The thing I love about valve games is their simple interface. They do a really good job at making their games easy to pick up for beginners. Think about how many keys portal uses? Space for jump, wasd for movement, left click and right click. Anything else? Not really. Hl2, tf2 and l4d all have simple control schemes. Who knows? maybe even my sister might be able to play it.
Think about how many keys you have to use in an rts? And how unintuitive the shortcuts were in sc1. How am I supposed to know that if I press m (which is all the way across the keyboard) will build a marine if i have a barracks selected. Sc2 does move the hotkeys to the left side of the keyboards which does help things a bit.
What I'm trying to say is, competitive games should be a battle of minds and not who can move their hands that fastest... Take high level street fighter for example. Daigo isn't the best because he has the best technique or knows intricacies of The Game the best. He is very solid player with the mind of a god. He is the best because he knows his opponents inside and out. Same goes for valle and others. They have excelled beyond a certain point where the game is no longer about execution but it's about understanding your opponent and how they react to you. (not the best wording)
Like I said, ideally you can skip passed all this execution crap and go straight to the epic battles of the minds I was talking about. Take chess as an example(awesome game, we should play it), I would say chess is pretty easy to pick up. After you learn how each piece moves you're pretty much ready to play. From then on, the game is all about logic and strategy. No fiddling with keyboards or 720 motions.
The interface for current rts's makes if hard to make them about strategy. Could be one of the reasons sc2 didn't get a perfect score? It's actually quite amazing how long it takes for you guys to learn to macro and control your units to a proficient level.
Game interfaces should be simple and intuitive. If my sister and her friends can play street fighter 4 (even with the shitty ass pads) in no time it's a sign that it's a good game.
Sorry for the long post. When you said you like a game that is all about apm it made me rage. Apm takes too long to build up and its unnatural. If you show your mom sc is she going to have an apm over 100 or be able to move around her units and know the objective of the game? no. If you show your mom sf4 will she know how to move around and jump and press buttons? yes. And she will know the objective of the game because its clear. RUSH THAT SHIT DOWN. In sc is not even clear that you have to mine minerals and build up a base before rushing shit down.
|
|
|
Post by crackboy on Aug 3, 2010 22:58:25 GMT -8
Yeah, I guess I am sucking Blizzards cock, but for a good reason. The reason why Sc has been around for so long is that it has a nearly infinite ceiling. I guess your right about rts games not having the simplicity that other games have, but it's still quite simple for an rts. Mine, build, kill. No stupid cover system and things like that to make the game easier to understand.
The thing about SC2 and what makes it a great competitive game is how the players play. No one wants to watch a great thinker but cannot put it into actions. I think that a big part of SC2 or rts in general is the hand movement. Holding an arcade stick the right way is unnatural, but if you take the time to work and practice, things become second nature.
A huge part of SC is the mind battles though, I assume you want the micro to be taken away. Then if that's the case, we might as well just play turn based games and chess. You can mash all you want in SF and Tekken but it doesn't mean your going to able to compete if you don't get the motions down. The only thing is that it takes much longer to perfect that in SC.
The great thing about SC is how everyone can be able to do all those things. I'm very sure everyone can get to 200 apm if they tried, hell savior raped everyone with 200 apm, in the state of SC where everyone had 300 and beyond.
I think I understand what you mean about a game being simple to pick up, and I agree, fighting games and such are games that are a lot easier to pick up and harder to master, but that's also what SC is about. What kind of high level play do you not see awesome mindgames?
Rts's are really the next chess, they aren't made to be like that. They aren't really meant for the casual gamer that much, and I think that's what your griping about. Or maybe griping about how hard it is for someone with no idea of the genre to pick up. The reason SC is so popular in Korea is because of what the amazing things progamers pull off (BOXER LOCKDOWN!), and makes people have the wow factor. I say for sure people aren't going to look at SF4 and go like :"WOW, LOOK AT THE MIND GAMES!". Competitive games should have a blend of both skill and thinking, that way it can best appeal to everyone. Otherwise the progaming scene will never grow.
On another note, how about go? It's easier to pick up then chess, but I think go allows for more mindgames because of the googleplex or whatever possibilities (said Jason).
LONG POSTS ARE GOOD.
|
|
|
Post by fudgikillz on Aug 3, 2010 23:35:47 GMT -8
First, there isn't a right way to hold an arcade stick. I don't care what daigo says, you do what works for you.
I don't think micro should be taken away, it's an integral part of the game. It's just not easy to learn at first which is disappointing. Of course some things take practice. Games wouldn't be the same if they didn't take practice. practice. Practice. see, I'm talking 'bout practice. Practice. It's all about practice... practice.
Ideally, games could be played by both hardcore an casual. Portal is a decent example although it's not multiplayer. And I'd also like to say that it's a bold statement to say that rts's are the next chess. Is starcraft going to last hundreds of years? no. There might still be some truth in that statement though. Highly doubt it.
yeah i was thinking about go, but I've never played it because I'm too white. And I just finished sirlin's book and he talks about chess frequently.
About the boxer lockdown you mentioned. The average person will look at that and not know what to think. They don't know what kind of training and skill it took to accomplish that. Same goes for what you said about sf. The average person will look at a person who does dp 5 times in a row and go "What's so special?" Because they don't understand the level of yomi(and balls) that takes. It is unfair to make that comparison, because (as we see it) all koreans know how to play starcraft.
And on a side note, fighting games are much more exciting to watch than rts. i.e. ultras and rage. hey, they make the game super hype. Boxer's lockdown was just a very small part of the entire game. Although it's hard to beat that kind of epicness, other games are more hype and exciting. Face it.
I agree, Starcraft is a great game because there are just so many different possible strategies that are viable. There is no limit to where koreans can take that game. BUT DONT FUCKING BECOME A FANBOY. Fanboys are faggots. Nuff said. GET YOUR MOUTH OFF THEIR FUCKING DICKS. now im done.
I still don't think apm should be as crucial as it is for a true strategy game. Just me being a little nitpicky.
I'd like to see you get 200 apm. lol. wouldn't make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Aug 4, 2010 23:42:42 GMT -8
Ah ha, now I can disagree. Starcraft 2 actually moved more towards the principles of chess than it did before. I say this because of the way they removed most soft counters and made it more hard counters.
What this does is make it critical to think ahead (ie scout their tech and anticipate units), similar to how in chess, looking at the board and anticipating the opponents move is essentially the entire game.
|
|
|
Post by fudgikillz on Aug 5, 2010 0:27:46 GMT -8
good point. What some people call "noobing down" actually (imo) improves the game. 1. The game becomes more accessible. That is always a good thing. Games need to make money somehow. Look at how well the sims sells compared to sc. Kinda scary. Besides the sales part of it I like how TLO can do so many awesome things with a sub 200 apm. It's great to see that a person with natural handspeed can excel in this game. I have to say, you guys (excluding victor, stephen and jack) are still struggling to learn things about sc1 that should be simple. Like worker splitting, hotkeys and knowledge of build orders. 2. Like jack said use of counters becomes more crucial. Although this can lead to boring gameplay at times. I have yet to really play the game so I can't really say. I don't really like how certain units (hellions and reapers) become almost useless after a certain time period. 3. The game becomes very macro oriented. (could be wrong on this one) The choice players make on their unit composition make a big difference which adds to strategy. Still kinda lame how games can sometimes only have 2 battles..(initial attack, expand, mass) but do what ever it takes to win right? It's still really lame. w/e, this doesn't really matter. I just need to play the game. I'll say this game is great when terran and protoss get the nerfstick. I liked sc1, where i could make just hydras and zerglings. Deep eh? Well, at least terran mech is something i can abuse. Abusing imbalances is good. I should learn to do it more often .
|
|
oflanagan
SDT Member
life is an illusion nothing really exists
Posts: 435
|
Post by oflanagan on Aug 5, 2010 8:50:32 GMT -8
The largest difference between chess and all rts games is the fact that chess is perfectly balanced so to make an rts like chess you pretty much cant have multiple races. I dont think an rts game will be the next chess because people like to be able to choose different races and such but currently fighting games (street fighter and tekken) are closer to being like chess than rts. As Sam said a fighting game is easy to pickup but hard to master. remember at Ben's birthday party when we had so much fun playing tekken just mashing away. We didnt need to do a bunch of research into how to achieve victory like you kinda have to in a rts(build orders etc.) we just knew that you had to punch and kick them until they died. This is more comparable to chess because its very similar in that respect you move your pieces and try to take out the other person's king. Then as you get better you learn different strategies that can help you achieve victory. In tekken this would be the same as learning combos, safe moves etc. Compared to sc and other rts games where you have to some knowledge of what units are good a build order etc. As I said earlier i dont think an rts game will become the next chess because it is nearly impossible to make a completely balanced game. And also at the highest level for pretty much all games it stops being about execution and more about knowing what the opponent is going to do and thinking ahead. Also for a game to be the next chess every single unit or move should have a use.
I will probably get sc2 but not for a while i need to get some other things first i.e. gvgn+ and a psp.
|
|
|
Post by wazza on Aug 5, 2010 13:10:43 GMT -8
I won't even try to debate about SC II i can only add my opinion. I think apm should not win you The Game even though Boxers lock-down is ridiculously beast (i still think that is sped up cuz it is too super Korean to be real.) it is an Rts after all... (real time STRATEGY) so STRATEGY should be at least 66% of the game play. 1. The game becomes more accessible. That is always a good thing. Games need to make money somehow. This is so unlike you Sam, This was the entire reason you Raged/boycotted MW2/L4D2 was because it was "noobed down" so it could reach a bigger comunity of scrubs which = more money, and partly you were just pissed at Activision, but now you are promoting the "noobing down" of this game so "The Evil Corporation" can make more money?
|
|
|
Post by fudgikillz on Aug 5, 2010 13:35:00 GMT -8
Hahaha. Well, I was looking at it as if I were the game designer. MW2 and l4d2 weren't noobed down in the way I was talking about. (I'm starting to think otherwise about l4d2 but...) Both games felt too soon because of lack of new content and were cash grabs. Despite this, both games were very successful. It's just my opinion as a consumer that I don't want to spend 60$ on an unwarranted sequel just to see another next year. (not talking about l4d2, it's super cheap now and they are constantly improving it. No more sequels here. I hope...)
Appealing to a wide audience isn't a bad thing. When I say that making a game accessible isn't bad I do not mean to say that companies should start cranking out sequels rather than improving their current games. You misunderstood me and heard what you wanted to hear.
Making a game that is easy to pick up and play isn't just so that you can make money. It improves the game and makes it more fun.
|
|