Seeking opinions: What type of gameplay WOULD make SC2 fun to watch.

There are threads here in the forums about how StarCraft 2 isn't "fun" to watch. Others have stated this concern elsewhere in the community. I firmly hold onto the opinion "It's not fun... yet!" but realized something simple. Why haven't we explored what WOULD be fun?

I challenge you all to express your opinions and thoughts related to this question:

Quote:

---

What style of game play can you think of in SC2 that will be thoroughly enjoyable to watch?

---

I hope to see some positive, enjoyable examples/thoughts come from this. (And hope to see the debate on the subject left at the door, this is people's opinions after all... you can state you have a different opinion while respecting one you don't agree with.)

Going to start with the example I got this morning from talking to Blazur. I think many of you would agree.

For those who don't know him, SlayerS_`BoxeR` is considered as one of the most innovative, popular and interesting players in the game. Before he started his service in the South Korean Air Force he was considered by many to be a powerhouse to be feared. Since his time after his military service, he has had some issues being competitive, but still is entertaining and intuitive.

My thoughts on seeing him micro with his army supplimented with ghosts and medivacs (Not many, just a handful of each) would be awesome. Because ghosts cost 200 gas each, a single loss would be a devastating blow. The needed micro to protect them while handling your army and macro would be an intense thing. I would liken it to a single science vessal picked off by scourge... it adds a little "Oh snap!" to the game.

Imagine what he could do with snipe while cloaked. Imagine the distractions he would pull off with ghosts, nukes, key EMPs and the like. Just overall, I think that any game touched with a handful of these units could be fantastic in the hands we know would be entertaining.

A jaedong 150 muta micro-control, lol

I firmly believe that much of the enjoyment of watching Starcraft comes from knowing how mechanically hard the game is to play. Realizing just how much concentration and technique it takes to macro and micro correctly gives one a whole new appreciation for the game. This is a common theme in sports.


Yah Boxer smartcasting snipe on a bunch of units might be cool the first time. And then you log on and do the same thing almost as well. Takes allot away from the spectating expeirence. But if you see Boxer do something insane with snipe and you know how hard it is to do that then you know you have witnessed something amazing.

1) Warp prism harassment sounds exciting as hell. Load the ship with one probe, and fly it across the map looking for vulnerabilities. If you find an opening you have several options. Drop the probe, switch to phase mode, and reinforce the position with cannons for an offensive push. Or warp in some infantry to harass until reinforcements arrive, at which point you pack up and continue hunting for weaknesses.

2) Nuking runs. We saw how devastating this was in BR4, and based on the current ease of nuke acquisition this can be a frightening threat. Especially considering the ghost will have the dropship handy for healing.

3) Creep pushing. Probably won't see much of this, but on the chance your initial bases are in close proximity, a player could push a line of creep leading to their opponent for rapid troop movement on the ground.

4) Float your initial CC to a nearby island (after loading 5 SCV's into it), and fast-expand to Banshees with Raven support.

Archer... Sincerely man, stay on task. Don't debate the meaning of the post.. contribute please :) If you want to debate how "fun" or "not fun" it will be, take it to the thread for that discussion.

I did. Your lead was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

I challenge you all to express your opinions and thoughts related to this question:

---

and I said that the mechanical difficulty of the game greatly contributes to the enjoyment (rush) you get from spectating.

Quote:

---

I firmly believe that much of the enjoyment of watching Starcraft comes from knowing how mechanically hard the game is to play. Realizing just how much concentration and technique it takes to macro and micro correctly gives one a whole new appreciation for the game. This is a common theme in sports.

---

I agree with this. It's the appreciation that the amount of practice someone put in to perfect a strategy you know you'll never be able to do... that's what makes it fun to watch. To see thing that have never happened before. It's not going to be "phase prism" harrassment that's fun to watch.

It's going to be watching innovation of strategy, the metagame, the skill, that's what's fun to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

I agree with this. It's the appreciation that the amount of practice someone put in to perfect a strategy you know you'll never be able to do... that's what makes it fun to watch.

---

Its not the only thing but its certainly one of the biggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I firmly believe that much of the enjoyment of watching Starcraft comes from knowing how mechanically hard the game is to play. Realizing just how much concentration and technique it takes to macro and micro correctly gives one a whole new appreciation for the game. This is a common theme in sports.


Yah Boxer smartcasting snipe on a bunch of units might be cool the first time. And then you log on and do the same thing almost as well. Takes allot away from the spectating expeirence. But if you see Boxer do something insane with snipe and you know how hard it is to do that then you know you have witnessed something amazing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

I agree with this. It's the appreciation that the amount of practice someone put in to perfect a strategy you know you'll never be able to do... that's what makes it fun to watch. To see thing that have never happened before. It's not going to be "phase prism" harrassment that's fun to watch.

It's going to be watching innovation of strategy, the metagame, the skill, that's what's fun to watch.

---

@bothI know it defeats the purpose of your "don't know yet" theory, but can you think of an example that you would thoroughly enjoy, such as dropping mules to block a ramp? (Pulled that one out of my arse)

Quote:

---

Yah Boxer smartcasting snipe on a bunch of units might be cool the first time. And then you log on and do the same thing almost as well. Takes allot away from the spectating expeirence. But if you see Boxer do something insane with snipe and you know how hard it is to do that then you know you have witnessed something amazing.

---

@archer: That's the type of gameplay I think I would enjoy, is seeing them individually move around while doing snipes. This would still be a way to show off skill by not using smart casting as it was intended. We know they have the APM to do maneuvers like this without smartcasting.

I think Archer has it backwards with what makes something interesting. It isn't whether you know it's mechanically difficult or not. It's rarity that makes something interesting and unique.

When you've watched 200+ StarCraft matches, you start to get a feel for the flow of them. You know what to expect when player X does Y. Etc.

Boxer is Boxer because what is does is specifically different from what other people do. He's a micro player in a macro game, so his playstyle is fundamentally different from everyone else. What he does is interesting because you haven't seen it before.

Now yes, the reason why most of these things aren't standard is because they're too difficult for most players to pull off or simply too risky. But risky play is just as interesting as difficult play, if for no other reason than that you know if everything doesn't go just right, it'll all fall apart.

The issue in SC2 is that we haven't seen enough of it. We don't know what "standard" play is. Indeed, "standard" play probably hasn't even developed internally at Blizzard. So deviations from the standard simply look normal.

Is the Ghost massacre in BR4 normal for TvP? Is that generally how Terrans bring down a Protoss player? Or was this something novel that David Kim invented on the spur of the moment?

Wow, I guess I disagree that sc2 isnt fun to watch. I've watched all of the battle reports at least 10 times each, and the fourth was pretty damn enjoyable in my opinion. I liked br4 better than the others, but I enjoyed all of them.

I think there are a few major reasons why I enjoy every battle report of sc2 more than most any game i've seen in sc, with a few exceptions (I'll list the exceptions after):

1) Fast Start - The first major reason would be the down time in the beginning has been decreased significantly by giving each player 6 workers instead of 4, allowing them to get started with the action sooner

2) More Action, Less boredom - Less downtime after a big battle as we don't have to watch for minutes with no action while each race builds up again, as the reason it takes that long in sc1 is because of the difficulty of macro (Single building selection, manual mine, etc). In sc2, players are able to actually make use of the resources they get and quickly replenish an army to go after the opponent again.

3) Leaderboards(Units/Researching/Resources panels) - The actual replay leader board additions make it much more fun to watch the game because you can actually see what the players are doing.

4) Player Selection/Movement Indicators - You can see where each player is clicking, or what they have selected, giving you a better idea of what each player is doing at any particular moment. Basically it allows you to feel more a part of the game, because you are sort of getting into the minds of the players, rather than just watching units move around.

These four reasons are the major reasons I enjoy sc2 more than almost any sc1 game.

Sc1 Exceptions

I have seen a game where 2 protoss players were constantly going at it, and they killed eachothers base, and built nexus's in eachothers main, effectively switching spots. This was one of the games I just went "holy crap, I can't believe that just happened". For both players to go all in, destroy eachother, and replace their main in eachothers starting locations, was both exciting to watch, and probably one of the most amazing games I've seen.

I've seen a few other pro games where the action was pretty non-stop, and they showcased amazing microing ability, however, it was mostly the commentator who caught all the great action which made the game most enjoyable to watch. In sc1, you are really unable to get a good idea of how each player plays the game, outside of build orders and unit movements. In my opinion, that makes it hard to feel a part of the action.

Good points brought up Nicol, thanks for keeping it constructive/positive. (At this point, I'll apologize to Archer for kinda shutting him down, if good constructive points on what MAKES a game fun come from it, not bad)

While I think rarity shows a good example.. my thought is that it's more complex than than, maybe a combination of the two. A support for the other angle is Jaedong's and July's Muta Micro. While it's been emulated many many times, it can also be seen to be very entertaining against a good terran opponent.

... BUT... further supporting your point... any variance form a standard strategy really turns a good game into a great game. I don't have a link, but I remember one time when July went mutas... it got to the point that Terran had critical mass, normally where the zerg changes tech, and he instead kept going at it with Mutas.

The game got CRAZY fast as you suddenly had a critical mass of marines versus a critical mass of mutas... Ya know, I can see your point.

Maybe variance of play is a better semantic, but the "intent" of rarity is definately something I agree with.

Hm, well first things first, let's just be clear that I DO find SC2 fun to watch. Nicol's point I also agree with, rarity is fun to watch, but you have to be skilled at what you're doing. Watching someone go valks just to lose isn't fun, watching someone do something rare and unorthodox, but successfully, IS fun.

Quote:

---

@bothI know it defeats the purpose of your "don't know yet" theory, but can you think of an example that you would thoroughly enjoy, such as dropping mules to block a ramp? (Pulled that one out of my arse)

---

For example, maybe this would be considered unorthodox or inefficient, but what if a Protoss player made a ring of forcefields trapping in a bunch of its own units in the middle of an enemy base, like a Colossus or a bunch of stalkers, this could perhaps lead to considerable damage to the base while granting immunity to melee units. (Also pulled out of my arse).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I think Archer has it backwards with what makes something interesting. It isn't whether you know it's mechanically difficult or not. It's rarity that makes something interesting and unique.

When you've watched 200+ StarCraft matches, you start to get a feel for the flow of them. You know what to expect when player X does Y. Etc.

Boxer is Boxer because what is does is specifically different from what other people do. He's a micro player in a macro game, so his playstyle is fundamentally different from everyone else. What he does is interesting because you haven't seen it before.

Now yes, the reason why most of these things aren't standard is because they're too difficult for most players to pull off or simply too risky. But risky play is just as interesting as difficult play, if for no other reason than that you know if everything doesn't go just right, it'll all fall apart.

The issue in SC2 is that we haven't seen enough of it. We don't know what "standard" play is. Indeed, "standard" play probably hasn't even developed internally at Blizzard. So deviations from the standard simply look normal.

Is the Ghost massacre in BR4 normal for TvP? Is that generally how Terrans bring down a Protoss player? Or was this something novel that David Kim invented on the spur of the moment?

---

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

Hm, well first things first, let's just be clear that I DO find SC2 fun to watch. Nicol's point I also agree with, rarity is fun to watch, but you have to be skilled at what you're doing. Watching someone go valks just to lose isn't fun, watching someone do something rare and unorthodox, but successfully, IS fun.



For example, maybe this would be considered unorthodox or inefficient, but what if a Protoss player made a ring of forcefields trapping in a bunch of its own units in the middle of an enemy base, like a Colossus or a bunch of stalkers, this could perhaps lead to considerable damage to the base while granting immunity to melee units. (Also pulled out of my arse).

---

I agree, that would be fantastic to watch. Thanks for thinking of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

---

A good example that supports both would be the previously mentioned muta micro. While it's not neccessarily rare itself now, rare things can come out of it. The micro and mechanic ability required to perform such actions is commendable too.

Also, the initial 4 on 4 units, or 3 on 6 zergling micro can be rather exciting as well. This is nowhere near rare, but is highly mechanical. (Where the death of a single marine in early game could cause the entire crowd to gasp) This should probably conclude that at least 2 of the facets that make a game interesting are both rarity (or variance from standard play) and mechanical ability (a high show of skill). I wonder what other facets would fit into the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

---

I think watching something that is impossible for you to do at all is more frustrating than enjoyable. I agree that I want to see professionals pull off things in a way thats close to impossible to do, but I'd expect that to come because they execute an action perfectly, when the rest of us cannot, rather than because they can do something thats impossible for us.

For example, watching american football and seeing a linebacker perfectly diagnose a play, follows the QB's eyes, and perfectly times an interception. This isn't impossible for people to do, but its difficult to do without the preparation, instinct, and experience that the pro linebacker has.

I prefer difficult to do for all over impossible for most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

I think watching something that is impossible for you to do at all is more frustrating than enjoyable. I agree that I want to see professionals pull off things in a way thats close to impossible to do, but I'd expect that to come because they execute an action perfectly, when the rest of us cannot, rather than because they can do something thats impossible for us.

---

I remember the first time I saw muta micro. I was blown away. So I went online and researched it. The I tried to do it. Failed. Kept trying. Kept failing. Got alittle better. Got alittle better. And so forth.

Then the first time I beat an opponent using it. Amazing. Now by that point I had seen muta micro a thousand times. It was in no way a rarety. But that did not at all take away from the incredible feeling of having mastered a mechanicaly demanding skill. If Mutamicro had just been slightly hard I doubt that I would have had such an experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I remember the first time I saw muta micro. I was blown away. So I went online and researched it. The I tried to do it. Failed. Kept trying. Kept failing. Got alittle better. Got alittle better. And so forth.

Then the first time I beat an opponent using it. Amazing. Now by that point I had seen muta micro a thousand times. It was in no way a rarety. But that did not at all take away from the incredible feeling of having mastered a mechanicaly demanding skill. If Mutamicro had just been slightly hard I doubt that I would have had such an experience.

---

I get that adversity makes it more rewarding to play, but I dont think that has anything to do with making it more enjoyable to watch.

Edit - The kind of adversity you want to see in a game is one side take a big advantage, and then the other side is able to come back and win, or for both sides to be evenly matched and then all of a sudden theres this amazing shift of momentum. The changes in momentum are the adversity that bring enjoyment watching a game, not just respect for the difficulty to play it.

Most of what you said there shows the reward for doing something you felt was impossible, however, I still believe even if it was easier you'd feel the same reward, because i'm not sure a mind is capable of having satisfaction from achievement, and then greater satisfaction from greater achievement. I think you just get satisfaction from any achievement. You can claim one is bigger, but i dont think you feel one is bigger. Most people just remember the latest feeling as the biggest feeling, or put logic into it and say, obviously this was bigger, so I must have felt more satisfaction there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

I get that adversity makes it more rewarding to play, but I dont think that has anything to do with making it more enjoyable to watch.

---

Oh i should have mentioned that part. While I was learning to muta micro I was watching muta micro games. And knowing what it was like for me to do it made watching them do it so perfectly that much more exciting. Its hard to describe but it really was amazing. I knew what to look for and I could imagine where and just how fast they were clicking and how hard it was to get split second timing like they had. It added a whole new dimension.

I'm gonna have to agree with Nicol that rarity is the most exciting thing to see. It doesn't matter if it comes from the difficulty of pulling it off, a deviation from the standard way to use a unit, or an abuse of a glitch. As long as its different, I find it the most interesting aspect of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Oh i should have mentioned that part. While I was learning to muta micro I was watching muta micro games. And knowing what it was like for me to do it made watching them do it so perfectly that much more exciting. Its hard to describe but it really was amazing. I knew what to look for and I could imagine where and just how fast they were clicking and how hard it was to get split second timing like they had. It added a whole new dimension.

---

However, in that case, I feel like you'd be better equipped after watching a game to learn how to do this same situation in sc2, if it were still available the same way. The reason is, you can watch what the player is doing at any point in time with the click and selection indicators thats in sc2.

It's not really a part of the gameplay, but it is valid in this discussion about actually watching the game. You should be able to learn from watching better people play, and thats severely limited in sc1, aside from BOs and what units are chosen in what situation. It's extremely difficult to learn the hows of a player doing something in sc1, you just know it gets done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

However, in that case, I feel like you'd be better equipped after watching a game to learn how to do this same situation in sc2, if it were still available the same way. The reason is, you can watch what the player is doing at any point in time with the click and selection indicators thats in sc2.

It's not really a part of the gameplay, but it is valid in this discussion about actually watching the game. You should be able to learn from watching better people play, and thats severely limited in sc1, aside from BOs and what units are chosen in what situation. It's extremely difficult to learn the hows of a player doing something in sc1, you just know it gets done.

---

It wasnt just knowing where he was clicking. It was knowing how hard it was to click there. Thats what im trying to get across. It was the difficulty that made it incredible to watch.

Quote:

---

"OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

---

I've been playing SC (off and on) for a good 10 years now. And I've been watching SC for 2 years or so. And I have never once thought anything like that while watching any Pro games.

Being amazed by that is like being amazed that a programmer can intelligently discuss the C++ vs. Java issue, or that a marathon runner can run 20+ miles non-stop. They're supposed to be able to do that; it's their job.

Quote:

---

Also, the initial 4 on 4 units, or 3 on 6 zergling micro can be rather exciting as well. This is nowhere near rare, but is highly mechanical. (Where the death of a single marine in early game could cause the entire crowd to gasp) This should probably conclude that at least 2 of the facets that make a game interesting are both rarity (or variance from standard play) and mechanical ability (a high show of skill). I wonder what other facets would fit into the mix.

---

The situation you describe comes from highly degenerate play. That is, play based on a particular metagame that requires all players involved to do X because not doing X will result in either their immediate loss or leave them too open to certain kinds of attacks.

For example, I found the standard PvT wall harass interesting a few times. Then it got dull. It's the same thing over and over. Zealot + Dragoon attacks wall. SCVs repair. Siege tank comes out. Dragoons get range. Siege tank gets Siege mode. Harass ends.

If one side fails completely (ie: the battle is not a draw) then it can elicit a gasp from the crowd, but that's only because somebody screwed the pooch and it suddenly means that they're in a problem spot. It isn't because the play itself was good or interesting; it's because one player is now screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I've been playing SC (off and on) for a good 10 years now. And I've been watching SC for 2 years or so. And I have never once thought anything like that while watching any Pro games.

Being amazed by that is like being amazed that a programmer can intelligently discuss the C++ vs. Java issue, or that a marathon runner can run 20+ miles non-stop. They're supposed to be able to do that; it's their job.



The situation you describe comes from highly degenerate play. That is, play based on a particular metagame that requires all players involved to do X because not doing X will result in either their immediate loss or leave them too open to certain kinds of attacks.

For example, I found the standard PvT wall harass interesting a few times. Then it got dull. It's the same thing over and over. Zealot + Dragoon attacks wall. SCVs repair. Siege tank comes out. Dragoons get range. Siege tank gets Siege mode. Harass ends.

If one side fails completely (ie: the battle is not a draw) then it can elicit a gasp from the crowd, but that's only because somebody screwed the pooch and it suddenly means that they're in a problem spot. It isn't because the play itself was good or interesting; it's because one player is now screwed.

---

Nicol we have already established that you and I get very different things out of playing starcraft. I suspect that if you went over to Teamliquid you would find allot more players who view the sport as I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Nicol we have already established that you and I get very different things out of playing starcraft. I suspect that if you went over to Teamliquid you would find allot more players who view the sport as I do.

---

You keep confusing playing and watching... They really have no connection to each other at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

You keep confusing playing and watching... They really have no connection to each other at all.

---

I mean both. Playing and watching. The things I experience while playing impact what I experience while watching. Its not in a vacuume.

I feel there is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive. I think that trying to judge the excitement of a game by individual parts will not garner as much as looking at the sum and identifying the parts that lead to that sum. For this reason, I believe that rarity and display of skill are not mutually exclusive at all and are typically intertwined.

Here are three examples of things that are displays of both in some form.. making them just as awesome to watch now as they were the first time.

Boxer's Immortal Marines
3 Marines, 1 Lurker (Having a hard time finding the original)
Tempest's Dragoon Micro

@Nicol, what type of examples would you enjoy seeing in SC2, include pro names doing them if it helps out.

@Archer Let's stay on subject and talk about what would be enjoyable to WATCH in SC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

@Archer Let's stay on subject and talk about what would be enjoyable to WATCH in SC2.

---

I am. But the thing is that what i find enjoyable to watch is influenced by playing the game. Its hard to explain why I enjoy watching muta micro without talking about what its like to muta micro. I could say oh cause they kill allot of units. And that would partially be true. But thats not the primary reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I am. But the thing is that what i find enjoyable to watch is influenced by playing the game. Its hard to explain why I enjoy watching muta micro without talking about what its like to muta micro. I could say oh cause they kill allot of units. And that would partially be true. But thats not the primary reason.

---

Have you watched Muta Micro in SC2? Reread the Title of the thread. ^_^

EDIT: While I understand that you're trying to explain WHY you enjoy it, I think it's important that we don't digress on this subject too much, otherwise it's an exact duplicate of the other thread I linked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Have you watched Muta Micro in SC2? Reread the Title of the thread. ^_^

EDIT: While I understand that you're trying to explain WHY you enjoy it, I think it's important that we don't digress on this subject too much, otherwise it's an exact duplicate of the other thread I linked.

---

What type of gameplay WOULD make SC2 fun to watch?


The same gameplay things that made SC1 fun to watch, like mechanically difficult Muta micro.


I see what your saying so ill think focus on other gameplay examples that I feel would make SC2 fun to watch.

1) Back and forth camera shifting gameplay= what the specator sees is simpler than what the player is doing

2) Fast paced with many more options than possible to do= specator has appreciation for prioritization the player is making

3) Gameplay where its easy for players to make mistakes= allows for unexpected plays, massive battle shifts, dependant upon player prioritization

4) Army size linked to player skill instead of automated with all players having roughly same size army= allows one player to have a larger army then the other

5) Gameplay that allows a player who loses much of their army to focus on rebuilding their army and beat back the opponent= allows a player to come back from the dead

1. Underdog victory

Some of the most gripping matches I've watched are when a player is taken to the verge of a defeat, but makes a miraculous comeback with few resources. The situation becomes tense, and this is where the real 'balance' of the game kicks in, seeing how a few well-microed units can do against an opponent with complete map control.

2. Abilities/attacks that can be avoided

I think SC2 need to have enough weaknesses to exploit through micro - IE Lurker's attack being able to be dodged by marines, damage avoidance through dropship trick. This is why I don't like abilities like Snipe, which is simply an instant attack on cooldown. Not fun to watch a ghost pick off units with snipe compared to perfectly placed D8's or Nukes. You know the D8/nuke is avoidable, and it's what gets you curious to see if the player is able to move out in time or not.

3. Incredible APM

Nuff said. SC2 has to have abilities that are easy to use, hard to master. Seeing someone use lockdown on multiple targets in the matter of seconds, seeing someone micro reaver drops, or even dancing mutas in and out is fun to watch. Knowing these can only be pulled off by the best of the best in both strategy and execution is what made SC1 so interesting.

4. Trump Cards

Whatever it may be, it has the potential of turning the tide, or instant victory. To watch a player tech up to these powerful units or abilities instead of making an army of earlier tier units is the kind of risk that we like to see.

I disagree with the idea that mechanical difficulty is the core of what makes something entertaining to watch. While it certainly adds to your enjoyment if you happen to know that what you just witnessed was, until now, believed to be physically impossible... this is far from the essence of the thing.

Consider all the casual gamers who watch replays, like my RL friends who watch SC2 BRs and love every minute. They've played maybe 20 SC games in their entire lives. What do you think one of these friends is going to enjoy seeing more, David Kim unload three of the Hellions to distract the Stalkers and catch up, saving all but one Hellion, or... watching the Nukes drop? Hell, they won't even notice the significance of what he did with the Hellions; why he did it, and how.

But they're watchers of the game just the same, and more often than not whatever gets their attention will get ours, too; SC rarely has big explosions for no reason, and SC2 is carrying on this tradition. That central factor must be whatever it is that works on both audiences, and appreciation of game mechanics is simply an added bonus, if a very nice one, for us.


Based on this criteria I'd imagine something like...
- dynamic, full of twists & turns (BR3, going back and forth, back and forth, like a pendulum)
- un-missable moments where tables turn (Terrible Damage, Nukes being dropped, Mind Control on Colossi, etc)


It's probably woefully incomplete, but these seem to be the sort of things anyone at all can readily appreciate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

I disagree with the idea that mechanical difficulty is the core of what makes something entertaining to watch. While it certainly adds to your enjoyment if you happen to know that what you just witnessed was, until now, believed to be physically impossible... this is far from the essence of the thing.

Consider all the casual gamers who watch replays, like my RL friends who watch SC2 BRs and love every minute. They've played maybe 20 SC games in their entire lives. What do you think one of these friends is going to enjoy seeing more, David Kim unload three of the Hellions to distract the Stalkers and catch up, saving all but one Hellion, or... watching the Nukes drop? Hell, they won't even notice the significance of what he did with the Hellions; why he did it, and how.

But they're watchers of the game just the same, and more often than not whatever gets their attention will get ours, too; SC rarely has big explosions for no reason, and SC2 is carrying on this tradition. That central factor must be whatever it is that works on both audiences, and appreciation of game mechanics is simply an added bonus, if a very nice one, for us.


Based on this criteria I'd imagine something like...
- dynamic, full of twists & turns (BR3, going back and forth, back and forth, like a pendulum)
- un-missable moments where tables turn (Terrible Damage, Nukes being dropped, Mind Control on Colossi, etc)


It's probably woefully incomplete, but these seem to be the sort of things anyone at all can readily appreciate.

---

I have a prediction that Nukes are going to lose allot of their WOW factor as soon as everyone can do it.

Quote:

---

I have a prediction that Nukes are going to lose allot of their WOW factor as soon as everyone can do it.

---

I concur.

However, hopefully the professional players find a more creative and difficult way to utilise nukes.

Although - I still believe this nuke is better than the SC1 nuke because in SC1... waiting 5000000 games to finally watch Boxer pull off a nuke on someone, that isn't really worth the fact that nukes are useless to practically everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I have a prediction that Nukes are going to lose allot of their WOW factor as soon as everyone can do it.

---

Everyone can use a Siege Tank or a Reaver to blow up 10 workers in one hit, too. That doesn't mean that you can't see the entire room-full of Koreans hold their breath for two seconds when it happens.

No one is going to care that you dropped a Nuke. Everyone is going to care that your Nuke just took out 10 Supply Depots that had been foolishly placed in a bunch, or an entire high yield expansion despite its Planetary Fortress.

Quote:

---

Based on this criteria I'd imagine something like...
- dynamic, full of twists & turns (BR3, going back and forth, back and forth, like a pendulum)
- un-missable moments where tables turn (Terrible Damage, Nukes being dropped, Mind Control on Colossi, etc)

---

Really, I think the thing that hurts BRs viewability the most is that they don't have a clone of David Kim. He basically rolls over everyone in all the games. 1-sided matches can be interesting to some degree, but they don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

There's also the simple fact that the game isn't being widely played. We see a few games here and there, but that's it.

So basically, what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with SC2. It doesn't need any new mechanics or whatever to make it fun to watch. If you're not finding it fun to watch now, that's got more to do with the limited player experience and relative immaturity (and lack of understanding) of the metagame. It isn't something that can be fixed by messing with the game.

It's like a joke. It's better if you're surprised by it, than if it's predictable.

There's nothing wrong if it's not fun to watch yet, the game is far from release. We know there's inbalances.

Graphically the game has been improved dramatically. I remember when people were complaining at the release of every screen-shot batch that the game didn't look well. Then people saw the videos and the animation shone through. The game was adjusted by Samwise and went through many iterations.

Just wait the gameplay has yet to shine, we're going into Beta soon, we're in a closed shell right now.

I for one would like better camera controls for spectating. Ability to zoom in and zoom out further than the average player can see. Ability to enlarge the minimap to fill the screen. Ability to have free control of the camera (rotate, altitude etc) And have fluid transitions between one spot and another.

For instance, right now, watch BRs and watch the Protoss announcement trailers. Look at how fluid the camera work is in the protoss announcement. There should be some accelerate to the cameras or some sort of smooth, right now too jittery.

These should all be options available to a game caster.