I finally threw in the towel on Starcraft this week. As a single player game, it’s amazing. Game of the year as far as I’m concerned. It’s multiplayer design is phenomenal as well. It’s the single best game purchase I made in 2010.
And yet, playing online, against humans, has demonstrated why I just cannot stand multiplayer games in general. At various times during the beta I was ranked between "bronze” and “diamond” leagues. In my experience, the difference between silver and gold is pretty small in terms of player quality. Above that, you are starting to deal with a much higher quality of player.
The problem is, at silver and gold levels of Starcraft, the players you’re up against are overwhelmingly “all in” starting strategists. That is, they expect to win or lose the game in the first 5 minutes, which, to me, as a father of 3 nearing 40 years of age, is an anathema. I want to play the damn game.
The key to Starcraft is “scouting”. You scout to try to figure out what strategy they’re going to employ. This works in theory -- if you’re willing to devote inordinate amounts of time to the meta game that is Starcraft multiplayer. The meta game consists of scouting YouTube and various other sites to see what the latest fad opening cheese tactic is.
Playing against Zerg? Check to see if they’re doing a Baneling rush. Mutablob? Or are they going to do the extra roach cheese rush? Or something entirely different.
Playing against Protos? Photon canon rush? remote base? Probe hiding in your base?
Playing against Terran? Mass marine + peon rush? Mass Reapers? Rush for cloaked banshees? Or any of the myriad of other all-in strategies.
Scout. Scout. Scout. That’s the alleged answer but it misses the point. If you want to play the game, counter or no counter you still lose. If you fail to counter, game is over in 5 minutes. If you successfully counter, they quit and game is over in 5 minutes.
I don’t even know what Blizzard could do about this because we are playing two different games. I am playing a game of Starcraft, they are playing the Meta game of Battle.net rankings.
I get more pissed off when I counter all-in strategy than when I fail because I don’t even get the satisfaction of taking the fight back to them. They quit immediately when their all-in attempt has failed and move on to the next game.
But that frustration is rivaled by the feeling that if I don’t want to be victim to the latest all-in strategy I have to keep up with it. The extra Roach trick, for instance, is really hard to spot from “scouting” and very hard to counter (and if you’re wrong about which strategy they’re going to employ – something the “scout” people ignore, you end up crippling yourself).
Probably the only realistic thing that Blizzard could do is have those at Bronze, Silver and Gold Leagues have a somewhat randomize set of start-up conditions so that players can’t literally play out a recipe strategy they read on the net. But I don’t see that happening.
I love Starcraft. I love it so much that I get frustrated that I can’t just get to play the actual game. I’ll have to stick with LAN parties for now I guess.
Well John, you can play me in multiplayer and we can team up in the begining for about 2000 turns and then, once all AI's are crippled, we can have a cold war that eminate into a series of 30 turn wars followed by peace and then war again. Volcanoes will litter the earth! Massive armies will roam seeking total destruction and I will unleash the Titans on your lands.
Now that is multiplayer!
Wow, seriously? This whole post is just a bunch of unfair generalizations and stereotyping. You really think we all grew up with $5000 computers? No one I grew up with had one and none of us even have one now. We grew up with the N64 and Playstation, but I guess those are probably too newfangled and complicated for Generation X to use (see, I can make unfair generalizations too ).
You want to guess how many characters were in those five sentences? 384. I guess those last 244 just typed themselves, because I don't have an attention span past 140 characters. And guess what? I was never given Rittalin.
You know what the average age of a gamer is? In 2008, it was 35, which is a birth year of 1973. The average gamer is from Gen X, not Gen Y. In 2007 the average age of a video game developer was apparently 31-35. You should be blaming yourselves for the sorry state of online multiplayer. But I'm sure it's much easier to pass the blame on to someone else.
Generation Y certainly isn't perfect, but neither is any other generation. You can't blame us for every problem, especially when you use a bunch of unfair and untrue generalizations to stereotype us.
Who is forcing you to go on forums and read up on a game? Why don't you just play the game and have fun for what it is? On one hand you don't like losing because it's not fun but at the same time you don`t want to learn and get better because it takes too much time or is "tedious". If that's the case, fine, don't play. But don't say that people who want to win aren't having fun or that the game isn't enjoyable. Throughout this entire thread I have explained how, by getting better at a game, people can have fun with the winning mindset that is so often derided here. Draginol was right, it is a player problem and that problem is with you.
Well WOW is complicated enough that you pretty much do need to go online and read about how to effectively play your class if you want to participate in the end game. But the actual time it takes to do this is not very long, so saying that your spending more time on the forums then playing the game is a pretty gross exageration. To be a good player you might have to spend an hour reading about and understanding the details of your class, but then your done. You don't need to back and do it again until they massively change your class again in another year. If your spending more time then that scouting then your doing it because you want to and not because you need to.
The existence of PvP.
I explained exactly why it is and isn't applicable to various games. Any game with an XP factor? you are not getting better you are just getting an unfair advantage, and games with massive sprawling unbalanced class types which are CONSTANTLY tweaked for balance is the same.
Studying for a game like it was an exam isn't learning to get better.
no you didn't, you just claimed it to be fact. And my point is that you aren't getting better at the game, you are getting better at meta-game and in exploiting inherent imbalanced in an overly complicated and unbalanced system.
pfft, about at level 30 you must go to contested areas if you want to continue playing. This is when the gankers get you. Unless you are playing a PvP server, then its level 1.
I think your confused. If your not playing on a pvp server, people can't gank you in contested areas. People can only attack you if you flag yourself as pvp.
I'm not sure how that related to the point either way though. You don't need to read that much to be good at pvp just like you don't need to read that much to be good at raiding You just need to take a few minutes every few months to read up on basic strategies. And no amount of reading will save you if your on a pvp server and your level 1 gets ganked by a level 80.
fair enough, you are right that a PvE server does not force you to PvP, my bad.
But the issue remains that if you want to play with or against other players (you know, multiplayer) you need to study. If all you do is play alone then why have it online at all?
For single player games you never have to study. Also for simple online games, or very well balanced online games. I never, ever ever had to scout for unreal tournament and quake. But for those so called "modern games" you do.
MMOs are a bit of a different animal in general. Some of them require a lot of research, mostly some of the aged ones, because the in-game support, information is bare and all of it is online. Some of the newer games are a lot better. Naturally, the manuals are pretty much useless due to the nature of the game. EQ 1 required a lot, a lot more research compared to EQ 2, for example. I spent hours just looking up things in EQ 1 while EQ 2 has things like built in recipe books. I don't play WoW, so I can't comment directly on that one.
QQ
This. This is why I don't play Starcraft II any more.
Then play as toss and build sentrys.......Problem solved. Also, get into platinum or diamond where the real strategy is. Or you can do as you say and just not play it anymore. Its a shame cause its a damn good game.
What?!? Seriously? While I agree with your multiplayer statement, the above is as far from true as possible. I'll leave out the tirade of why I was monumentally disappointed with SC2's campaign since it's off topic, but really? Really? It deserves some recognition, but nowhere near the level that it has because of it's predecessor's success.
The multiplayer is fun if you're playing someone you know, or luck out and find someone who enjoys actually playing the same "style" as you do. Since that is so unlikely, most multiplayer games are entirely unenjoyable for me. I would be much happier if they took away the scoreboards and let the players leave feedback for eachother post-game. That way we could all easily avoid the players with 100 feedback remarks of "12-year old who was raised poorly and rage quits at the 1st sign of possible defeat."
This is sadly also the reason why I do not multi at all any more only with a few I have knowed since c&c start now I do not multi play or mmo anymore I just do not have any fun with the games...
I for one do not care if I am rank 0 or something like that I only play for fun which with a good game of shall we say GCII where the game can last for more then an afternoon an you do what you can to survive and defeat you enemy... even if you loss you have enjoyed yourself and that is was I feel is lacking very much especially with starcraft
World of Tanks beta has hit a chord for me in that it's both PvP competitive (AKA smart, evenly-matched [When matchmaking likes you] human players against stupid or cheating AI) and fun. It's like the Demigod Beta before it became overrun by the, "OMG you were half second slow" (Actual quote) crowd. It's not perfect by any means, but it's one of the most fun games I've played in a long, long time.
blank
Well, in fairness it's not really a ragequit if your all-in strategy failed. That doesn't make 5 minute games fun for anybody of course, but if someone has clearly lost then I would rather they surrender instead of dragging things out. Or worse, the kiddies who pull their network cable in games where there is no disconnect penalty.
Still, sometimes the problem DOES lie with the game. If there is one 'unit' or strategy what is clearly better than everything else, you can hardly blame players for using it. And it's not just video games, it's anything. Anyone who played Magic the Gathering during the Mirrodin days can tell you about the Affinity deck. The deck was so strong in the standard tournament environment that it frequently curb-stomped decks filled with cards that were supposed to counter it. It eventually went away. Because people learned how to fight it? No, because they finally banned some cards. It's not always a player problem.
I have honestly lost some of the hope I had for Blizzard. I played Warcraft 1 when I was 3, and I was instantly hooked. I had no idea what I was doing, but I was hooked. I've played most of the games they came out with before World of Warcraft (with my historic computer gaming addiction, I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole), and all of them were excellent, sparking the imagination.
That being said, I have been keeping up with the reading and conversations on Starcraft 2 (I got it for my brother for Christmas), and I'm sadly disappointed by what I've been hearing. For one, Blizzard has done what other companies have done in making their games "secure," i.e. forcing you to have a log-in online before you can even play it. For two, my brother read through the fine print of Starcraft 2, which said that they reserve the right to begin charging money on a per-month basis to play in the future. For three, I've heard that their customer service has fallen below the standards of actually caring for their customers.
Which...that is one of the hopes that I have for Stardock. Despite the problems with Elemental: War of Magic, the ordeal did prove to me A) that Stardock is humble and is willing to admit that they were wrong, that they care about quality games, and C) that they care about their customers. I haven't purchased War of Magic yet - I'll probably wait until Fallen Enchantress comes out - but I did want Stardock to know that I am supportive of any company that considers their customers and their products worthwhile enough to deliberately cut into the profit margins as an act of good faith.
As for Fallen Enchantress...man if it takes until 2013 to make the game sparkle, I'm willing to wait that long. In a computer game market that's been flooded by mediocre games as well as great games released by companies that do not respect their customers, I would like to see Stardock continue to succeed in the industry. Keep it up!
Yes it is. People, a big part of this game is learning how to scout and counter/defend cheeses and all ins. There is no build in SCII that flat out cannot be defended there are only situations in which they can't be defended. Getting better at Starcraft does take a bit of "homework" if you will, studying build orders, strategies and learning the mechanics of the game. Part of it is learning the standard builds and whats "hot" but its more important to be able to skillfully transition out of those opening builds to effectively counter your opponents strategy and unit composition in the mid/late game. If you're constantly losing to cheeses and all ins then you need to examine and work on your early game, not complain about the builds that you're losing to.
Studying for Starcraft II ladder as though it were an exam is what sets the serious players apart from the casual ones, neither is right or wrong in their approach to playing the game but there's a huge distinction to be made, especially in the RTS genre.
I play sins because it has excellent balance and multiple ways of playing with shades of grey. I have won more unique ways playing this RTS game then any other. I want more games with this level of excellence, with even larger budgets. The more I play and the less I complain, the more the beauty of the game's balance comes into focus. This game is designed to expand in a meaningful way, so in a way a game can mitigate its own shortcomings in the long term if the developers have enough foresight to implement it.
I too have lost faith in blizzard. I have regained faith in one group of developers since then. Ironclad.
Sins developers need to make a real space MMORTS. They have the magic that blizzard lost.
Quite a few have. Blizzard changed when World of Warcraft made them more money than they ever thought they'd see. Now, don't get me wrong, Blizzard's games are always well polished, however the spark that made their older titles true classics just isn't there. They used to all have their own flavour, now everything flavoured "World of Warcraft". Starcraft II features more World of Warcraft references than references to it's own predecessor or it's expansion pack. To me, Starcraft II is, frankly, not a good game. Bad single player filled with gimmicky levels and no strategy element, and a poorly designed multiplayer component that is more of a "Win" placebo than an actually fun-to-play game. Diablo III, unfortunately, seems to be heading in a similar direction, though obviously we can't tell for sure at this point.
The reason Starcraft II is popular is because Starcraft was and is popular, not because it's a good game. Blizzard already had Starcraft II's eSport scene ready to go before the game was made, and it's that eSport scene and Corporate backing that's keeping the game alive. Left to it's own devices, it wouldn't be nearly as popular as Blizzard pretend.
I remember playing the original Warcraft. Even though the campaigns slowly worked up to the most powerful units/buildings (like most campaigns I guess, so I don't know what I'm complaining about ), the stories developed between scenarios were fantastic. Warcraft 1 was also one of the last RTS games that I could play at the regular speed (which admittedly was quite slow). Warcraft 2 was not bad, and Warcraft 3 was OK, but I have fond memories of Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. It had a really unique, epic feel, and the demo really pulled you in, although the third level of the Orcs and Humans sides was deliberately impossible (and also wasn't in the full game ). I would say that Warcraft was my first foray into computer (and RTS) games, and with its slow pace (and a little bit of reloading <grin>) I was able to enjoy it quite a lot. HOMM2 was my first foray into computer turn-based fantasy games and has become my favorite kind of gaming experience, followed later by Battle for Wesnoth and the Damage Calculation tweaks (Wesnoth Experimental for 1.8 versions of Battle for Wesnoth) though I still play a little Median XL with Diablo II:LOD. I played Guild Wars for a while, but eventually decided that MMOs weren't for me. It will be sad if D3 is graphics without significant substance and suffers from the WOW effect. I think eventually, the desire for a bigger scorecard (ie. more and more money) eventually corrupts absolutely, if it comes before making quality, relatively innovative and "soulful" products and services.
Best regards,Steven.
You are completely right. And the 52 000+ people watching the finals of the Team Liquid TSL3 are all Blizzard employes..
In bronze league of Sc2 you can win with even more ways then any other RTS.... come a bit higher and you will actually play against good players. Now the question is who did you play against in Sins and if anyone even bothered to really find out the most effective tactics of Sins (those players I am sure didn't bother to win in multiple ways but just WIN).
That happens in most RTS games, TorinReborn, everyone just develops a series of strategies that work, and use whatever one will work for the situation, then often do absolutely complete and totally nothing else. The development of such strategies often involves a renaissance like Boxer for Terrans in StarCraft/Brood War, but change is generally slow, very slow.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
