|
On February 28 2016 18:07 Kyir wrote: I don't want a new Warcraft game just because Blizzard has proven pretty definitively in Starcraft 2 (and expansions) and World of Warcraft that they don't have anyone left who can write anything worthwhile or interesting. Creat a completely new universe for WoW is best way IMO. Right now WoW has alot of big event but i want they follow up after wc 3 event in the sequel.
|
some day there is going to be quite a few descriptions of the early gamer's sense of discovery, and online gaming. online gaming was new at some point, and it was cool, extremely cool. then there was chat added on top, the simplest thing that could happen eventually did happen.
i sat in warcraft, starcraft lobbies because i had a bunch of friends to play random shit with. as long as it met a certain level of quality or it seemed like a funny game with some competitiveness to it, it was game time. in starcraft particularly, there were lots of people in the same situation in life. they were looking for the same sort of custom games, (being a variety) or had a niche set of games they liked playing (like micro maps) and so there was a small community unbeknownst to your younger self.
now what are my friends doing? work and shit. random FPS titles, playing w/e everyone else is playing, just like before. there is no time to sit down and simply enjoy something for the sake of it, honestly, most of the same people who gamed back then lack that passion and patience now, or a lot of it is put into other stuff like devoted singleplayer experiences (skyrim, dragon age, witcher, etc.). I'll honestly say, if you wanted the same thing in sc2, dota 2, or even an upcoming RTS, you'd need a quality of custom map that's on par with an entirely standalone kind of game.. only difference being, it's using the same RTS models, textures, etc that are all recognizable and things you can connect with. i would pick drow a lot in wc3 customs, and likewise, map creators would design characters using the drow model to have a very similar play and feel across most maps even if they had nothing to do with one another.
it's all this association, being part of a different time period in gaming, and growing up to learn and love a game that everyone else was playing, that made early RTS games lovable and popular. i use the dota 2 example for customs because frankly, there are quite a lot of people playing them, but they're not very complex or anything like that. people play them because lots of people already play dota 2 and need something to wind down with (with friends).
have you even tried StarParty on sc2? that shit is insane. it has its own little community, but it's not going to grow, and neither are dota 2 customs as they have been declining little by little for a while now.
people initially pick up games because they have a lot of hype LoL, fallout 4, etc etc. but bringing it to competitive levels or, you know, putting a lot of time and effort into things is always going to be much more of a wish than it is something that people actually devote themselves to. people are FICKLE and jump ship often. these are the same online personae that ask for relationship advice, post about anime, tv shows, sports, and ask general questions on reddit and whatnot. i hope you have a good mental image of your average internet joe. that is you and whoever is playing online multiplayer for whatever game is out there, and people just change.
unfortunately for some, people jump ship MUCH later because their friends or their time spent in the game act[s] like an anchor.
|
On February 28 2016 14:28 B-royal wrote: RTS isn't a dead genre. Sc2 just isn't fun enough, both as a game and as a platform. I remember the GLORIOUS times of sitting in the frozen throne's chat channels or playing footmen frenzies, dota or other fantastic custom maps. Sc2 did not deliver that same experience.
They screwed up majorly with bnet and arcade. Are you kidding me? RTS is super dead. There's no market for it, and people stop buying RTS. The last non Blizzard RTS that sold 3 million or more copies was 20 years ago.
The best selling RTS of all time came out almost 20 years ago. Every other genre, ARPG, RPG, FPS, Action Game, Fighting game, adventure game, have all came out in the last 5 years. Not RTS.
On February 28 2016 05:55 Jimmy Raynor wrote: WC4 could be the game that proves RTS can still sell a lot of copies. There is hype for a new warcraft rts even without announcing it (just check any article related to blizzard and there are almost always wc4 comments). It can draw the whole blizzard rts crowd (wc+sc), old wc3 players who were not interested in playing mmo, blizzard fans as a whole (a lot of promotion between all their games these days) + rts players as a whole. Also, making something like the coop stuff that is currently in sc2 can be much more fitting for a game with more rpg elements like warcraft.
Also let's not forget about Jay Wilson, a guy that has a lot of rts experience, what has he been working on since leaving d3?
He's back on WoW.
I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat.
I think the future holds is Blizzard polishing up Starcraft 2 and making it a big platform. I think like half of SC2's problems is that it's made in this 90s-00s attitude of selling expansions to update the game and retain people. That doesn't fly in the post 2010 world. For a long while, they would hold back features to put on the back of the box of the new expansion. Now that's out of the way, I think they're going to update their game and hopefully it'll grow over time. I remember reading in an interview with Jeff Kaplan, that the CEO of Blizzard wants to support their current games with content and the like for much longer going forward. 10 years ago it was more like, everyone work on this game, everyone work on this expansion, ok let's move onto the next game. I think they want all their franchises/fanbases to sustain themselves/make profit over longer periods of time instead of just going underground for 6 years for the next game.
|
Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
|
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a game which appeals to the masses. Thats about it.
There you go.
|
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
All what Hearthstone tells us is that social, accessible games are the way to go and RTS is on the way out.
Starcraft 1 and 2 are stressful games, a lot of people want games to play in their spare time that is more relaxed, less apm + physical effort. It's a huge issue. For the ammount of streamlining SC2 has comapred to SC1, it's still a TREMENDOUSLY stressful game to the casual.
|
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see.
this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special..
i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy.
hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry.
did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices.
stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision.
What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ?
On February 29 2016 01:27 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space.
Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996.
its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre.
Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry.
|
business model is the most important reason imo the gaming industry has changed since the 90s/early 2000s and not quite for the better the press is bought, and many game companies are now too big with a focus on financial performance, they advertise games with cinematics and graphics and churn product after product relying on very well-known variations of recipes to people who get bored of each game after a few hours so the quality of games is pretty low in general and nothing sticks around for very long, people won't play that stuff for years because it's not fun or interesting enough
when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades, but big game companies of today ran by their shareholders don't like that because how do they increase profit? the shareholders profit matters to nobody else, but in this model their wallet is what drives the whole activity so we now get a lot shitty games instead of a bunch of gems
|
On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades,
NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't.
i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games.
|
ho letto il thread anche sul forum di bnet, bellissima iniziativa!
anyway i think that lotv is much better than lotv but it might be a bit late and it didint fix some of the structural problems of sc2
|
How do you measure success of the game?
Success is subjective:
I barely play myself these days however I still watch all major tournaments, never missing stuff like GSL SPL. If you consider success to be a high population on ladder or do you consider to success to be high quality pro gamers and organisations partaking in tournaments that have a hell of a lot of money up for grabs. RTS will always be the purest of esports imo. Even though a lot of players may move over to MOBA's the old guard will still remember and realise that a MOBA is just a modded RTS.
Personally I believe that SC2 pro gaming will continue for a good few years, and that is how I will measure it's success.
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
|
It's weird that people used to defend SC2 and RTS by their merits and now we're just moving the goalpost. Success is subjective, sure. RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever.
At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care.
|
I can't believe people isn't giving the proper credit to the genre problem. Right now the "new players" are awful, true story, most people don't want to lose time or die in a game, they want constant fast action, even in story mode they want to rush it ASAP and complete the game to said "I played it" But the worst part is when it comes to multiplayer, they don't want to play something hard, they want something easy, no brainer, fast and specially if they can put their frustration on others (team members) it is even better.
That is the reason so many games changed and others became so popular, for instance, MOBA, even if it has some depth, it is way easier to focus on ONE CHARACTER and play it always in team, and blame them if you lose, or let's see how RPGs has been evolved, now there isn't anymore turn based RPG where you actually needed to think your strategy, it is pure ARPG where you tun YOLO smashing buttons and setting few preset actions for your NPCs in the party.
RTS is a niche, right, ok, but with really low player base compared to other games, and the genre itself is dying, because there is not a lot of new people joining it, and it is not attractive to the regular player. That is why even if the most elitist fans of the genre defend it, you can see how Blizz tried really hard to increase the range of gameplays in SC2 itself, like Archon Mode, CoOp Missions, the Arcade itself, everything possible to keep customers playing it and not only the hard try ones used to 1v1 Multiplayer or the ones playing the campaign and leaving.
This is a whole culture change, and can see reflected on the videogames.
|
On February 29 2016 00:15 lestye wrote: I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat.
Insert obligatory "are you kidding me"?
Casuals LOVE micro. They HATE macro. Do you think placing buildings, making workers is the most appealing aspect of starcraft for casuals? Why do you think MOBAs are so popular? Because of their enthralling macro? It's because controlling single units, microing them to their full effectiveness combined with cool spells is tons of fun.
|
I don't know about europe but SC2 is doomed in korea. I've been living in seoul for 2 months now, i've been to GSL / SSL / Proleague and i've been to PC bangs everywhere from sinchon to Gangnam.
Almost nobody plays the game, you will find more people playing SC1 than SC2. The people watching are always the same, i met the same korean people in yongsan and in gangnam, i spoke with a few of them and most told me that the studio have began to see less and less attendance. You may not notice it on stream but they take rows of seats off.
Can't empathize this enough but PC bangs are the life of PC gaming in korea and sc2 isn't watched nor is it played. People just don't have fun with it anymore ( which is pretty bad when its supposed to be a video GAME ).
I really doubt blizz can do anything to spice things up. Also no major overhauls are gonna happen, don't even trip we're on the highway to hell so better buckle up your seatbelts because we're all gonna crash together. Expected date of deader than dead : christmas 2018.
|
On February 29 2016 02:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades, NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't. i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games. oh I agree with you that's not specific to RTS just like you said every genres still having their specificities too (yeah RTS is something special^^)
|
On February 29 2016 02:41 Djzapz wrote: RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever. At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care.
a TCG is a virtual representation of a physical game. Another example is Texas Hold'em poker in virtual form on PokerStars.Net or FultTilt.Net. In fact, the TCG has benefited from improving technology because I can now easily play it on my cell phone and tablet without running up a big phone bill for excess data usage. Its more convenient than ever to play a TCG. Is it more convenient to play an RTS game? No, its more convenient to play Mobile-Strike on my smart phone and watch shit blow up.
Pong , Vertical Gallery Shooters, Flight Simulators, Text Adventures, Multi-directional Shooters, Dot Eating Maze Games, Scrolling Shooters, etc. And this is just from 1980-1985. Want me to move on to 1986?
for every 1 borderline example you can name.. i can name 100 counter examples of declining and marginalized genres due to improving technology giving consumers more choices.
do people still play Space Invaders, Flight Simulators, Zork 3, Asteroids, MsPacman and Defender? Their world record high scores are constantly being challenged and broken. So, Yes, people play them. Do these genres create enough revenue to justify dozens of full time employees working on a commercial project ? no they do not. This is where RTS is headed.. and in many ways we're already there.
every video game genre ( that is not a virtual representation of a physical card game) has declined as technology has improved. RTS is no different.
On February 29 2016 03:16 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades, NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't. i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games. oh I agree with you that's not specific to RTS just like you said every genres still having their specificities too (yeah RTS is something special^^)
in my heart its special too. my heart isn't going to give ATVI the $100,000,000 USD they want to justify the investment in another RTS project though.
|
and yet smaller developpers are developping some new RTS as we speak^^ let activision do its own crap and blizzard defend themselves if they can
|
On February 29 2016 03:03 shid0x wrote: I don't know about europe but SC2 is doomed in korea. I've been living in seoul for 2 months now, i've been to GSL / SSL / Proleague and i've been to PC bangs everywhere from sinchon to Gangnam.
Almost nobody plays the game, you will find more people playing SC1 than SC2. The people watching are always the same, i met the same korean people in yongsan and in gangnam, i spoke with a few of them and most told me that the studio have began to see less and less attendance. You may not notice it on stream but they take rows of seats off.
Can't empathize this enough but PC bangs are the life of PC gaming in korea and sc2 isn't watched nor is it played. People just don't have fun with it anymore ( which is pretty bad when its supposed to be a video GAME ).
I really doubt blizz can do anything to spice things up. Also no major overhauls are gonna happen, don't even trip we're on the highway to hell so better buckle up your seatbelts because we're all gonna crash together. Expected date of deader than dead : christmas 2018.
I think this has been the case ever since HotS. Wings of Liberty was fun, because it was still fresh. A lot of people, including me expected big changes come HotS that never came, and the game just became boring and tedious over time. And LotV was just too little, too late. I think the big problem was aiming to become "esports" from the very start. You can't make esports happen. Esports happens when the game is fun to play for a big community. Its the community that designates what is esports worthy, not the developer. Between SC-like hardcore RTSes, Company of Heroes-like RTSes and the awkward Grey Goo / Act of Agression games, the genre is in a very weird place. Homeworld: Armies of Karak is like Dune I guess...
I personally had the most fun playing: Warcraft 3 (high HP units, very micro friendly), Armies of Exigo (excellent balance between micro/macro) Company of Heroes 1 (Like warhammer 40K, node control, squads of unique units, a bit of RNG in damage) and a fair bit of Red Alert 3 (pretty decent micro/macro balance) + Command and Conquer 3 (Tier 1 tank spam wars)
I'm trying to put together an image here what made these games FUN for me to play and for now I can say: easy and enjoyable on the surface BUT have enough depth to distinguish better players. Be it through more tactical/strategy options, better micro (saving units) or just out-muscling your opponent with more units.
I don't want to bash SC2 any further for its game design, but I do hope someone, somewhere makes a really good RTS in the foreseeable future.
|
On February 29 2016 03:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:41 Djzapz wrote: RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever. At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care. a TCG is a virtual representation of a physical game. Another example is Texas Hold'em poker in virtual form on PokerStars.Net or FultTilt.Net. In fact, the TCG has benefited from improving technology because I can now easily play it on my cell phone and tablet without running up a big phone bill for excess data usage. Its more convenient than ever to play a TCG. Is it more convenient to play an RTS game? No, its more convenient to play Mobile-Strike on my smart phone and watch shit blow up. Pong , Vertical Gallery Shooters, Flight Simulators, Text Adventures, Multi-directional Shooters, Dot Eating Maze Games, Scrolling Shooters, etc. And this is just from 1980-1985. Want me to move on to 1986? for every 1 borderline example you can name.. i can name 100 counter examples of declining and marginalized genres due to improving technology giving consumers more choices. do people still play Space Invaders, Flight Simulators, Zork 3, Asteroids, MsPacman and Defender? Their world record high scores are constantly being challenged and broken. So, Yes, people play them. Do these genres create enough revenue to justify dozens of full time employees working on a commercial project ? no they do not. This is where RTS is headed.. and in many ways we're already there. every video game genre ( that is not a virtual representation of a physical card game) has declined as technology has improved. RTS is no different. I agree with all of that.
|
|
|
|