StarCraft: The past, present and future • Hacker News Board

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#101

Post by froo » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 2:06 AM UTC

catshirt wrote: post #99

froo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least in SC it's obvious. I watched Life in the World Championships on the weekend do like 300APM constantly. I'd honestly be going GG at about 1 minute in I think.

sure but it's irrelevant. it's like saying "baseball is inaccessible because Derek Jeter is amazing". or "i can't play chess because Carlsen Magnus is a grandmaster". there are so many responses suggesting Starcraft cannot be played casually. it's no different than saying chess cannot be played casually- which is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. Some people have serious problems multitasking and can't juggle resource management, unit constraints, tech trees and defense/offence simultaneously themselves (my girlfriend being one of them, she just can't play RTS's) on a basic level.

Never mind trying to also throw in micro and optimum game strategies into the mix.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#102

Post by catshirt » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 3:23 AM UTC

froo wrote: post #101

catshirt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure but it's irrelevant. it's like saying "baseball is inaccessible because Derek Jeter is amazing". or "i can't play chess because Carlsen Magnus is a grandmaster". there are so many responses suggesting Starcraft cannot be played casually. it's no different than saying chess cannot be played casually- which is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. Some people have serious problems multitasking and can't juggle resource management, unit constraints, tech trees and defense/offence simultaneously themselves (my girlfriend being one of them, she just can't play RTS's) on a basic level. Never mind trying to also throw in micro and optimum game strategies into the mix.

sure- but just like chess, it's about finding an opponent of equal skill to have fun with and play together.

SC2 specifically has a few options for this. one really fun option is playing 2v2 vs CPU. or 1 v CPU on easy mode (it is essentially a passive CPU). the expansion is also introducing "archon mode" which is 2v2 but each team of 2 controls one base/army. "comp stomps" were prominent in SC1 because even though they were, by definition extremely easy, it's a fun social way to play. there are also "fastest" modes that completely eliminate the need for resource management by giving all players unlimited minerals.

my point is that while SC2 is daunting, there are a dozen options for players of all skill levels, even those who don't intend to play competitively.

maybe a better analogy than chess would be learning an instrument. it's difficult to become a good guitar player, but it takes an advanced lack of interest to not have fun learning.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#103

Post by mattlutze » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 1:09 PM UTC

padobson wrote: post #62

mattlutze wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And blurred lines like you illustrate above are a good argument why we can't say video games should be primarily considered performance art pieces in the realm of interaction design, as well as why we can't say video games should be primarily considered story delivery mechanisms. The video game is both interactive and passively consumed. Machinima exists because of how enjoyable experiencing a story through a video g…

If we follow this rabbit hole too far, we'll end up trying to answer questions like "What is a game?" and "What is art?" But what you're describing is what I want. I want more immersion, I want the focus to be on the what the gamer experiences and giving them something meaningful to do. But when you plug your brain into the NeuralCube4000 two decades from now, what are you going to get? What I want: You're in a tille…

^^ Is why all of this has to be as much or more about the story as the tech. Story development needs to grow to do things like giving NPCs in the games personalities to deepen your immersion in the story and to help it grow toward it's confluences of "predetermined destiny" or whatever.

Fret not! Of your two NC4000 possible futures there, we're already getting some fantastic examples of the first case.

I'll be contentious though in that you've stood up two straw men there. A "here's different world simulator, go explore" game will take you only so far without story and motivation toward some end. And the second option would get the same reviews a game like that would today -- formulaic, boring, pedantic.

One aspect at the expense of the other gives you a not motivating game, it's as direct as that. You need an interface that becomes transparent over time, and you need compelling storytelling to engage you in the lives of the characters and their plight.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#104

Post by conceit » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 3:09 PM UTC

cryoshon wrote: post #42

venomsnake wrote: post #25

Blizzard's initial offerings were surprisingly dark and mature - both diablo, warcraft I&II and starcraft. Only starcraft's tone has not been degraded much so far (although the writing is weaker). I guess legacy of the void concludes a chapter of the company history. They are a e-sports company now. Their three latest games are gameplay driven with barely any story at all. Overwatch, HoTS and HS. Diablo III got a pas…

Yeah, Blizzard had a gothic tone in a lot of their early games. Unfortunately, they've replaced it with cartoony stuff for the most part. Writing wise they've fallen a long way, but it doesn't matter. Blizzard's primary success since their early games (pre-WoW) is understanding and abusing the psychology of addiction and creating videogames around that concept. They make ultra-streamlined (sometimes to the point of b…

> Yeah, Blizzard had a gothic tone in a lot of their early games

Not just Blizzard, compare the Doom and Quake series, that lost this appeal