MMOPRTS

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Spartan_Marine88]

Lol cod isn't all that bad. It found what people like and kept doing it. If anything, blame the consumer.

cod wasnt that bad, but then came the clones and they DO get worse (some are surprising, but most not) you got tons of FPS. Fear was good, Fear 2 was not, Fear 3 i couldn't even touch

ET was diff, it was a horrendous game no one bought because it was rushed.

ET wasnt the beginning of the rushed lazy games, but nearer the end

[Killer344]

I stopped watching after he called Starcraft 2 "great".

Anyone who starts a discussion about great RTS's by calling Starcraft great loses their credibility right out of the gate.

-Wind

l2p

[TheWindCriesMary]

l2p

Fan boi 

[DarkSoldierX]

Fan boi 

There is alot of speed and cordination into the pro's playing starcraft. Ive watched the pro's play and they adapt just like we do.

On the contrary to what you anti-SC people think they don't just do 1 build over and over. The real pros see what the enemy is bringing and adapt a build to defeat that. And no its not all that. They micro it too. Yes, they actually micro on contrary to what you think. And the macro they have to do makes that even tougher.

[Killer344]

Fan boi  

An outsider to CoH might think the same when he sees for the first time a lot of shit blobbed; my point is, get at least on the gold/platinum league and then come back and tell me it's a "rock/paper/scissor game".

One of the things I love about SC is you don't have to waste time when you end up playing vs noobs, you can rape them on under 3 minutes lol.

[Spartan_Marine88]

SC2 in the pros is all about actions per minute and muscle memory. You arent thinking and arent really playing anything, at that point all it is is who can click in the same pattern but faster.


At those speeds you might as well be playing this

http://gametrick.net/rapid-click.htm

[DarkSoldierX]

SC2 in the pros is all about actions per minute and muscle memory. You arent thinking and arent really playing anything, at that point all it is is who can click in the same pattern but faster.

This just prooves you know nothing. GTFO if all you seen are like 1 video of some bronzes streaming.

[Spartan_Marine88]

This just prooves you know nothing. GTFO if all you seen are like 1 video of some bronzes streaming.

really because when people like Fenix tell you to focus on your APM, shut the fuck up and listen

[DarkSoldierX]

really because when people like Fenix tell you to focus on your APM, shut the fuck up and listen

Its not pure muscle memory its not 90% muscle memory its not 70% muscle memory, its nowhere near that.

There is stratigic aspects of starcraft and you fail to see them.

[Spartan_Marine88]

There is stratigic aspects of starcraft and you fail to see them.

build more marines, win

what you fail to see, is that there is only a strategy if you let the opponent live long enough to get past tier 1 units

[DarkSoldierX]

build more marines, win

what you fail to see, is that there is only a strategy if you let the opponent live long enough to get past tier 1 units

No point in arguing if I clearly cant convince you otherwise.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Guys I think the problem here is that you (Dark and Killer) have heard a lot of guys, mindlessly, bash SC2.

They've used tired and cliche arguments like "omfg SC requires no skill" and "SC sux because it's simplistic". The result is that the argument revolving around SC has become a "SC sux and requires no skill" vs "SC requires lots of skill look at de proz" type situation.


 Which is why when I say SC is not a great RTS, it makes sense that you would be likely to immediately assume I am saying: "SC doesn't require any skill and is bad."

The truth is what I am actually saying is quite a bit more nuanced. So let's put down our cliche hammers and stop hitting eachother on the head and actually engage the complex question of: Why isn't SC a "great" RTS?

What SC 2 is:

SC 2 is a very fun, and solidly produced game. It could even be described as a great game if you take into account the massive fanbase it has, and the sheer playability of it.  It has great balance, solidly developed gameplay, decent graphics and is certainly not lacking in the entertainment department.

It also has a very high level of play in the upper tiers (due to it's massive fanbase providing a larger base pyramid from which experts are more likely to emerge).

What SC 2 is not:

A "great" RTS.

The problem that SC 2 has in trying to win the title of a "great" RTS is that it is, at the end of a day, a game designed for maximum appeal, minimum BASE GAMEPLAY complexity, and general mainstream accessibility. This isn't to say it's a game that doesn't have complexity or potential for high abillity (as anyone who follows it's pro leagues can attest), nor is it to say that it isn't intelligent in it's own ways.

What this means is that, ultimately, SC 2 is a game designed for the largest possible segment of the population as possible. This wasn't accidental or careless on Blizzard's part -- it's simply their (very succesful business model).

The strengths of this kind of design philosophy are that you can create a game that is easy to learn and enjoy, for hardcore gamers and casual gamers alike. It doesn't require much in the way of complexity beyond a simplistic structure of buildings, units and their various abillities. In other words, the gameplay complexity is essentially the sum of a few very simple principles. Add on a few mitigating factors such as unit abilities etc. and you essentially can keep the gameplay basic, while also allowing significant room for practice, experience and dexterity/quick thinking to determine overall player abillity.

The weaknesses of this kind of design are that the game is, ultimately, not traditionally strategic. The fundamentally basic foundation of the gameplay inevitably dictates that, at the highest levels of play when knowledge of unit types and experience are expected to be roughly commensurate, victory will essentially be determined by factors such as dexterity and speed. There simply isn't enough available room for complexity, chance or chaos variables to truly simulate a sense of a traditional definition of the term "strategy".

Starcraft's most skilled players have taken the base gameplay to incredible heights, but if the same time and effort were put into a game of more base complexity the commensurate amount of complexity would be commensurately greater.


Starcraft and Starcraft 2 are fine games, but that's when you appreciate them for what they are: more akin to arcade style base-building than strategy as would more accurately be the case for a Total War type game or, a strategy game in its purest form like Hearts of Iron 2.

These games are infinitely less accessible because of their complex, unforgiving and ultimately strategy driven BASE gameplay. It makes them "great" RTS's, although as a rule it also makes them infinitely less popular or widely accessible.

SC is what it is, and it is exactly what it wants to be.
 

[TheWindCriesMary]

To put what I wrote above in a much shorter format:

SC 2's most vocal critics say SC 2 is a bad game because of it's base gameplay.

SC 2's most vocal supporters say SC 2 is a great game because of the high level of skill required to compete in its top levels.


I say that the argument itself is flawed. SC 2 is a great game, but it is not a great RTS. That isn't a knock on SC 2 though, as it doesn't claim to be a "great" RTS.  It's a wildly succesful game with a huge and loyal fanbase and a thriving competitive community. Great RTS's, on the other hand, are almost definitely never financially succesful nor are they widely played -- you simply can't be complex enough to make incredible strategic gameplay possible while also selling tons of games. A truly great RTS is a game like HOI2, that is virtually unplayable unless you spend a huge amount of time painstakingly teaching yourself how to play. Once you do play, the absolutely infinite number of possible strategies and potential paths to victory are beyond count. There is also never a "right" way to do anything.

That is ambiguity, strategy and chaos variables at work: the hallmarks of what make a "great" RTS.

Also, some important definitions from my earlier post:

BASE Gameplay: The basic mechanics required to play the game out of the box. Essentially the sum of challenge algorithims required to complete a match against the most casual of opponents (Ie. build base, build units, destroy enemy)

Top tier gameplay: The mitigating factors that enhance and make BASE gameplay more difficult or complex: Ie. experience, unit knowledge, speed/dexterity

-Wind

[Killer344]

yo... those are Turn Based RTS, they are not RTS; it's like comparing CoH to WoT.

[Spartan_Marine88]

CoH to WoT.

tbh its not, there still rts' while WOT is not

[TheWindCriesMary]

yo... those are Turn Based RTS, they are not RTS; it's like comparing CoH to WoT.

Killer man, this post is a fail.

1. Hearts of Iron 2 is not a turn based game. Get those facts straightened

2. When referring to the Total War Series, I of course was referring to the real time battle system which is perfect for comparison to a game with far more BASE complexity like SC. Although far less successful in other areas like playabillity and accessibility, the Total War games certainly are leagues ahead in the "strategy" department. That isn't to say they are better "games" in general, only that they are "Greater" strategy games. I can promise you that if Blizzard woke up tomorrow with the total revenue from the Total War games instead of the total revenue of SC2, they would shoot themselves. So there is definitely no arguing that SC 2 isn't the more succesful game.

[Killer344]

Lets say you have an "odd" definition of RTS, I'm going to drop it, I don't feel like arguing semantics for the rest of my life.

[TheWindCriesMary]

My definition of an RTS is normal.

Starcraft isn't a great RTS, but it is a great game. It is a soft RTS -- that isn't an insult to SC, it's simply an objective look at the design philisophy behind it.

Blizzard designs widely accessible games that are traditionally both successful, enjoyable and engaging. Great RTS (like HOI2), however, are very in accessible due to the mindblowing level of strategic complexity behind them.

Which is why it's unfair to try and expect SC 2 to live up to the title of a "great RTS" when it never tried to be one in the first place.

People on both sides of the "SC 2 sux, it has 0 skill rofl" /"OMFG SC 2 is the most strategic game evarrr!!111" need to get their heads out of their asses and stop trying to make the game something it isn't. It knows what it is and doesn't try to hide anything.


-Wind