Gaming 15 - The StarCraft 2 Argument
Posted on 6th Aug 2010 at 14:46 by Podcast with 29 comments
Is StarCraft 2 any good? Harry thinks so, explaining that he loves the varied missions and excellent side-content that bolsters the singleplayer campaign. Joe, on the other hand, reckons that the plot is predictable, the writing dire and that the gameplay hasn't moved on since the original.
Now, Joe and Harry go head to head in a podcast that critics are calling 'mildly entertaining' and 'a bit louder and easier to hear than usual'.
Meanwhile, Alex talks about indie art game, Limbo, and ponders whether the games media has a tendancy to get hyperbolic about certain indie games.
On top of that there's also much complaining about the work of Tim Burton, plus some puzzled looks when Alex asks just what American McGee ever did to become famous.
We've also got the usual Guess the Screenshot competition, where you could win a fancy SteelSeries headset, plus reader mail and discussion of many other inane topics.
Use the links below to listen to the podcast, which was recorded on Shure microphones, was supported by SteelSeries and features music by Brad Sucks.
Now, Joe and Harry go head to head in a podcast that critics are calling 'mildly entertaining' and 'a bit louder and easier to hear than usual'.
Meanwhile, Alex talks about indie art game, Limbo, and ponders whether the games media has a tendancy to get hyperbolic about certain indie games.
On top of that there's also much complaining about the work of Tim Burton, plus some puzzled looks when Alex asks just what American McGee ever did to become famous.
We've also got the usual Guess the Screenshot competition, where you could win a fancy SteelSeries headset, plus reader mail and discussion of many other inane topics.
Use the links below to listen to the podcast, which was recorded on Shure microphones, was supported by SteelSeries and features music by Brad Sucks.
29 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyFixing it now. Sigh.
Looking forward to listening to it.
Not embedded because it's EXTREMELY NSFW audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDO5N9XQJm4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQ7GIBGPEM
I know it may be a little idiotic, but it is modded and that's what this site promotes. I'll get off my soapbox if it's the wrong video.
And I like World War 2 games.
I did not expect to laugh as much as I did.
This obsession about APM is inaccurate. SC2 was criticized by the pro's for having a low APM requirement, the average effective APM for a diamond player is below 100. If the staff had taken any time to watch professional analysis, they would see that micro does not in fact win games.
And again, this odd mentality with being "good" is again childish. The fernando torres analogy is solid, i dont understand why its not logically applied. Im going to use myself as an example:
Ive player approximately 90 games of SC2 in 1v1 since launch, i did NOT play beta, i was never any good at SC1. By this logic, i should be horrific at this game. I am in the top .5% in the world according to league rankings.
I watched Day9, i worked out build orders, i studied pro replays. I didn't do anything having to do with APM. This obsession with APM determining skill is inaccurate and unfounded.
Furthermore, your definition of success, or being "good," is downright naive. I dont consider myself exceptional, but i do have a solid grasp of the game. Whats more, i have fun playing it, with my 50% win rate. Im not the best, but im confident in my play and can accept losses. Who are you to say what "good" is? Both subjectively and empirically, i am "good," yet that has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
I think this crusade against SC2 is the perfect example of the reverse fanboy on Joe's part, as he has consistently and without substance bashed the game, from the "First Impressions" article till now. It is obvious that he has not taken any serious time to research the claims he has made or peruse the wealth of strategic theory and analysis that would cast the game in a different light.
I understand it's fun to hate whatever is popular, but joe has been hating it before it even came out, without any well thought out reasoning.
1. Its blanced and always will be.
2. Its map creator was both very good and very easy to use (i could make it do interesting things with no skill at all).
3. The story made sences and there was even able to push some mild drama into the mix the whole leveing behind of ******** (no spoilers) we can say the new one does dial back the sence of loss a bit its still ok the trade off with the better graphics make it ok.
OMG Joe starcraft (even the first one has a cover system) the trees lower the chance to be hit and high ground gives an advantage of its not reviled if the openent doenst have a unit on the same or higher level (flighers and sencors can make short work of this advantage).
multi player brakes into 3 tiers home maps (casual/fun anything goes fighting off zombi hords being a single marine agains the swarm races with vultures). General play against people of the same level hard. The super hard ladder competion play (imossible for most).
You play Counter Strike vs a good team you might get a kill but you will get many many deaths.
You play Guildwars vs a top guild even if your team all have head sets and have complemetry builds you will losse and losse baddly most likly without a kill.
You know why this isnt a problem you dont play them there is a match maker for a reason you will probably never play a top korian but you will play lots of other causal SC2 players you just havent played enough games for you rating to flaten out I bet you werent even playing a good player I aced someone in under 15mins and I doubt I can clam 1 to 2 actions a second.
Its like in real life when you go to a tornament and theres some guy in your weight class who can do that revers spinning kick and actual keep is leg strait and the balance shifitng all the way through the spin you know when he steps up its not going to end well. But you find your level as with anything.
The technology pushed forward by id Software is by far going in a better direction than Crytek. Crytek engines are sluggish and don't scale down to run on bad hardware too well, it's almost like they just throw as much crap at the screen as they can to blind you with pretties. Every id Software game has scaled to an incredible level, this includes their "failure" Doom 3 which ran on a Rage128Pro at 0.3fps.
The only other real front runner is Epic Games. Their Unreal 3 engine has taken off more than any of their others, it's practically running every major console and PC game at the moment. It's a resounding success.
So it's Technological Success vs Business Success.
On another note, I don't think Valve should be included in this line up. They monkey on the back of other technology, not that that's bad, but the game engine is still running on 10+ year old technology. It's been spruced up a hell of a lot and how they manage to hide all the flaws with that old technology is truely astounding. HL2 still to this day looks good, but this is because of good art choices not because of frontier technology.
bout 3 mins in was the best i thought, what a guy
I've just finished one regarding CPU core use and overclocking performance. The guys in the office will be doing another afaik.
uploaded a video to the queen (at around 4:15).. one of the last 3 or 4 missions- not much to spoil but I sped up the 10 minute video.. check it out in 720p at least
QYrFCrJW9N4&fmt=22
posting a guide in the gaming section on how to fix the nvidia drivers so it doesn't look like your looking at a huangs ass