By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Smash Bros Wii U & 3DS isn’t Aimed at Experts

KungKras on 27 June 2013
wartaal said:
KungKras said:
Just to chip in on the Starcraft discussion.

Soleron: Muta stacking and the like did open up a lot of new strategies in the game, and made it more fun, even on the lower levels. You don't need super pro mechanics to do it at all, but you do need super pro mechanics to get the most out of it.

I don't like how you assume that Starcraft has a high skill cap. Anyone can play it against an average opponent and have a blast. Free For all games are crazy fun too. Just like all good games, the depth doesn't ruin it for the ones who don't want to become pro at it, because the fundementals are accessible.

Also, the guy that you're arguing with is wrong about the death balls. The death balls comes from the bad pathfinding of the game and how all units push each other like fluids. Units being able to block each other without sliding and better collision detection would fix that.

Unlimited unit selection is a natural way to evolve the RTS, but other things in the game ruins the mechanic. SC2 just isn't designed by as talented people as SC:BW.
The hard counters, and Blizzard's zealousness in removing unintended but fun and balanced stuff (like the archon toilet) are much bigger problems.

Yes, i know a few of people who bought sc1/sc bw just because of jaedongs 3 hatch into fast mutas. Or Bisus sick shuttle/reaver micro and multitasking.

Hvaing a healthy competitive E-Sports scene does so much more for the game and its overall sales than dumbing it down and makin it more accessible(which doesnt guarantee any sales btw, this is just a myth).

Thats why he brings up LoL which is a free to play game and because it has naturally a big userbase(most free to play games usually do).

Yes he is actually comparing a Free to Play MOBA to the most competitive online RTS which costs 50$ per expansion at retail and somehow thinks hes making a point.

And no SC2 doesnt have bad pathing, it has actually much "better" pathing meaning units will clump up in millliseconds and the unlimited unit selection(aka put my entire army in control group 1) makes it much worse.

Removing key mechanics from games and replace them with nothing is bad, no matter how much u spin around it.

Um... which side are you taking in this discussion? I can't quite follow you.

Why do people have to assume that accessible and dumbed down is the same thing? Starcraft is a very, VERY accessible RTS. Games like Age of Empires and Total War are much more fundementally complex. What sets SC:BW apart is how much you can delve into it (if you want to).

The pathfinding is bad in SC2, because units are too small, and they push each other. But this could have been helped by good unit design as well. If units were designed to be microed separately from the main army, the pathfinding wouldn't be much of a problem either.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
wartaal on 27 June 2013
KungKras said:
wartaal said:
KungKras said:
Just to chip in on the Starcraft discussion.

Soleron: Muta stacking and the like did open up a lot of new strategies in the game, and made it more fun, even on the lower levels. You don't need super pro mechanics to do it at all, but you do need super pro mechanics to get the most out of it.

I don't like how you assume that Starcraft has a high skill cap. Anyone can play it against an average opponent and have a blast. Free For all games are crazy fun too. Just like all good games, the depth doesn't ruin it for the ones who don't want to become pro at it, because the fundementals are accessible.

Also, the guy that you're arguing with is wrong about the death balls. The death balls comes from the bad pathfinding of the game and how all units push each other like fluids. Units being able to block each other without sliding and better collision detection would fix that.

Unlimited unit selection is a natural way to evolve the RTS, but other things in the game ruins the mechanic. SC2 just isn't designed by as talented people as SC:BW.
The hard counters, and Blizzard's zealousness in removing unintended but fun and balanced stuff (like the archon toilet) are much bigger problems.

Yes, i know a few of people who bought sc1/sc bw just because of jaedongs 3 hatch into fast mutas. Or Bisus sick shuttle/reaver micro and multitasking.

Hvaing a healthy competitive E-Sports scene does so much more for the game and its overall sales than dumbing it down and makin it more accessible(which doesnt guarantee any sales btw, this is just a myth).

Thats why he brings up LoL which is a free to play game and because it has naturally a big userbase(most free to play games usually do).

Yes he is actually comparing a Free to Play MOBA to the most competitive online RTS which costs 50$ per expansion at retail and somehow thinks hes making a point.

And no SC2 doesnt have bad pathing, it has actually much "better" pathing meaning units will clump up in millliseconds and the unlimited unit selection(aka put my entire army in control group 1) makes it much worse.

Removing key mechanics from games and replace them with nothing is bad, no matter how much u spin around it.

Um... which side are you taking in this discussion? I can't quite follow you.

Why do people have to assume that accessible and dumbed down is the same thing? Starcraft is a very, VERY accessible RTS. Games like Age of Empires and Total War are much more fundementally complex. What sets SC:BW apart is how much you can delve into it (if you want to).

Its why they have barely any competitive online scene. apples and oranges and im getting tired of repeating myself

The pathfinding is bad in SC2, because units are too small, and they push each other. But this could have been helped by good unit design as well. If units were designed to be microed separately from the main army, the pathfinding wouldn't be much of a problem either.

Units do push each other, but its done intentionally its not bad or dated. ALot of PRO Protoss players actually use this feature to push their merging archons intoo safety or into enemy armies.

 

SC2 pathing is actually rly impressive, have u ever seen the fluididty of 100 lings roaming the map, manuevering thru chokes and such? SC2 "great" pathfinding actually hurts the game more than it fixes the old outdated sc bw pathfinding(which was 2d btw).If ur still convinced about sc2 having bad pathfinding go read up basily any article about sc2pathfinding. What u probably mean is this newer , better pathfinding is actually bad for the game overall. Lowering the skill ceiling just for the sake of being technicly better, without adding anything to raise the skill ceiling back to where it was is as bad as can be.


KungKras on 27 June 2013
wartaal said:
KungKras said:
wartaal said:
KungKras said:
Just to chip in on the Starcraft discussion.

Soleron: Muta stacking and the like did open up a lot of new strategies in the game, and made it more fun, even on the lower levels. You don't need super pro mechanics to do it at all, but you do need super pro mechanics to get the most out of it.

I don't like how you assume that Starcraft has a high skill cap. Anyone can play it against an average opponent and have a blast. Free For all games are crazy fun too. Just like all good games, the depth doesn't ruin it for the ones who don't want to become pro at it, because the fundementals are accessible.

Also, the guy that you're arguing with is wrong about the death balls. The death balls comes from the bad pathfinding of the game and how all units push each other like fluids. Units being able to block each other without sliding and better collision detection would fix that.

Unlimited unit selection is a natural way to evolve the RTS, but other things in the game ruins the mechanic. SC2 just isn't designed by as talented people as SC:BW.
The hard counters, and Blizzard's zealousness in removing unintended but fun and balanced stuff (like the archon toilet) are much bigger problems.

Yes, i know a few of people who bought sc1/sc bw just because of jaedongs 3 hatch into fast mutas. Or Bisus sick shuttle/reaver micro and multitasking.

Hvaing a healthy competitive E-Sports scene does so much more for the game and its overall sales than dumbing it down and makin it more accessible(which doesnt guarantee any sales btw, this is just a myth).

Thats why he brings up LoL which is a free to play game and because it has naturally a big userbase(most free to play games usually do).

Yes he is actually comparing a Free to Play MOBA to the most competitive online RTS which costs 50$ per expansion at retail and somehow thinks hes making a point.

And no SC2 doesnt have bad pathing, it has actually much "better" pathing meaning units will clump up in millliseconds and the unlimited unit selection(aka put my entire army in control group 1) makes it much worse.

Removing key mechanics from games and replace them with nothing is bad, no matter how much u spin around it.

Um... which side are you taking in this discussion? I can't quite follow you.

Why do people have to assume that accessible and dumbed down is the same thing? Starcraft is a very, VERY accessible RTS. Games like Age of Empires and Total War are much more fundementally complex. What sets SC:BW apart is how much you can delve into it (if you want to).

Its why they have barely any competitive online scene. apples and oranges and im getting tired of repeating myself

The pathfinding is bad in SC2, because units are too small, and they push each other. But this could have been helped by good unit design as well. If units were designed to be microed separately from the main army, the pathfinding wouldn't be much of a problem either.

Units do push each other, but its done intentionally its not bad or dated. ALot of PRO Protoss players actually use this feature to push their merging archons intoo safety or into enemy armies.

 

SC2 pathing is actually rly impressive, have u ever seen the fluididty of 100 lings roaming the map, manuevering thru chokes and such? SC2 "great" pathfinding actually hurts the game more than it fixes the old outdated sc bw pathfinding(which was 2d btw).If ur still convinced about sc2 having bad pathfinding go read up basily any article about sc2pathfinding. What u probably mean is this newer , better pathfinding is actually bad for the game overall. Lowering the skill ceiling just for the sake of being technicly better, without adding anything to raise the skill ceiling back to where it was is as bad as can be.

The pathfinding is technically good. But is bad for gameplay. You could have made a pathfinding system that is technically good, but still good for gameplay.



I LOVE ICELAND!

wartaal on 27 June 2013

Yes thats what i said



wartaal on 27 June 2013

nvm



Around the Network
KungKras on 27 June 2013
wartaal said:
Not too long ago u were preferring unlimited units per group over 12 units per group for no other reason than unlimited is more than 12, so therefore it must be better? Even if it means making the game boring and static andlowering the skill ceiling by a big amount?

The Command & Conquer games (the good old ones) had unlimited unit selection, and it never turned into death balls.



I LOVE ICELAND!

wartaal on 27 June 2013

we are talking about games who r built around a professional competitive online community



wartaal on 27 June 2013

SSB Melee was paving the way to having a healty highly competitive cummunity, highly skilled melee players found ways to get better by using moves that werent in the intruction manual.
They removed all these things in Brawl just because these moves werent part of the original design, even tho casual players have nothing to gain by having these removed .
Sakurai as mentioned in the OP calls these highly skilled players "maniac players".
Basicly what hes saying is, you can only play this game the way we intended, thinking outside the box and creating alternative strategies is not appreciated.



DevilRising on 28 June 2013
happydolphin said:
DevilRising said:

Smug cynicism only carries you so far, even on the internet.

 

What, precisely, do you find "pleasantly ironic"? That I would prefer Smash Bros. to stay the way it is, instead of trying to emulate regular fighting games? And that if I want to play a "Deeper fighting experience", I'll PLAY one of those regular fighting games? I fail to see the "irony" in whatever you're attempting to point out.

The irony is that for many Smash is serious business, it has a VERY competitive community, and the game has very advanced techniques that are much more difficult to pull off than the advanced techniques in most fighting games. I know, I regularly play Street Fighter IV, and I can tell you that some of the advanced concepts in smash just as cancelling lag, zoning, reflecting, catching and edge-guarding/recovery are very difficult to fully master.

The irony is that you know nothing yet call people in this thread morons. That's the ironic part. Street Fighter and others are not more serious business than Smash is for any logical reason I know of.


No, the true irony here is you assuming I "know nothing", and feeling like you needed to comment in the first place. I'm fully aware of the so-called "Competitive Smash Community" that still to this day only play Melee, and they're more than welcome to do so. But I'm sorry, Smash Bros. is not, nor was it ever intended to be "serious business", and people shitting their trousers like spoiled brats because they expect that Smash should be made for THEM, and not "For everybody", is pretty fucking hilarious. Not to mention terribly sad. Smash Bros., from the very BEGINNING, even before it was CALLED "Smash Bros." and before it featured Nintendo franchise characters, the core gaming idea as set out by Iwata and Sakurai, was ALWAYS "a fighting game that anyone could pick up and play", along with the as-yet unrealized notion of 4-player fighting.

Beyond that, Smash has never been a traditional fighting game. It's a mish-mash of platformer and fighter, and it's that uniqueness that makes it stand out. People wanting the series to go back to being exactly like Melee, is a step backwards that Sakurai does not need to take. I'm sorry, but he doesn't. If a vocal minority love the way Melee played so badly, well, it still exists, they are welcome to continue playing it. But why SHOULD Sakurai and Co. feel compelled to cater to, as stated, a vocal minority, instead of trying to make the series stay true to what they always inteneded it to be, a game "for everybody".



Soundwave on 28 June 2013

So it's basically like every Nintendo game basically ever made. All of Nintendo's games aim for the sweet spot of being easy to get into and accessible, yet still enjoyable and challenging for core players.