Time: 12:32:57 CET 03:32:57 PST 06:32:57 EST 20:32:57 Seoul 19:32:57 Beijing
NEWS
Transparency, or why StarCraft owns Warcraft 3
StarCraft, ladies and gentlemen, is a much better spectator sport than Warcraft 3. And if you are angered by this statement already, would it anger you even more if I said that my opinion on this issue matters more than yours?
By Michal 'Carmac' Blicharz
Apr 15, 2008 02:53
StarCraft, ladies and gentlemen, is a much better spectator sport than Warcraft 3. And if you are angered by this statement already, would it anger you even more if I said that my opinion on this issue matters more than yours?It is very simple. You already love and enjoy Warcraft 3. The organisers of esports tournaments are not after you. They already have you. You watch those matches, you download replays and you get excited.
They are after me. It is me, and thousands of others like me, that the leagues need to reach out to to grow their sport. I could be their surplus. I am your paradigm for the random guy that won't play an RTS himself but will gladly watch a good game. This is why I am important and my perspective matters.
So here it is: between StarCraft and Warcraft 3 the older game is the far superior spectator sport.
On the other hand, I have never really played SC but I enjoy watching it greatly. My girlfriend has never played games at all and she loves watching SC. Not WC3. Why would that be?
The best things about SC are the game's pace, how dozens of units can perish within seconds, the quick turns of action, its intensity and non stop war going on. You can argue that WC3 is not as fast and exciting. You can say that the match develops at a much slower pace. But that's not even important.
Let me tell you how an outsider sees Warcraft 3. It's two bunches of colourful units running in circles around the bush in the middle of the map for no apparent reason. Seriously, that's what it is.
By contrast, nothing gets more transparent than StarCraft. You have a clear front line, or a couple, and units just keep pouring into it (you can have two avalanches of units smashing into each other for four friggin' minutes, now how cool is that?). When more units die on one side of the front than on the other, the line moves and you can easily tell who is winning.
In order for a game to grow as a spectator sport, it needs to be able to attract more than just its own players. It needs to be transparent and easy to enjoy. And it needs to entice with infinite depth beneath the surface level.
In Warcraft 3 there is so much more to enjoy than meets the eye. Sadly, there is so little that does meet the eye.
They are after me. It is me, and thousands of others like me, that the leagues need to reach out to to grow their sport. I could be their surplus. I am your paradigm for the random guy that won't play an RTS himself but will gladly watch a good game. This is why I am important and my perspective matters.
So here it is: between StarCraft and Warcraft 3 the older game is the far superior spectator sport.
"My girlfriend has never played games at all and she loves watching SC."
I have completed the Warcraft 3 single player campaign but I still don't really dig WC3 when I watch it. Seriously, when I play the game in single player for a week, I expect to understand the basics of what is going on in a match. I am not a complete retard, but in WC3 I don't.On the other hand, I have never really played SC but I enjoy watching it greatly. My girlfriend has never played games at all and she loves watching SC. Not WC3. Why would that be?
The best things about SC are the game's pace, how dozens of units can perish within seconds, the quick turns of action, its intensity and non stop war going on. You can argue that WC3 is not as fast and exciting. You can say that the match develops at a much slower pace. But that's not even important.
"WC3's two bunches of colourful units running in circles around the bush in the middle of the map."
Before your eyes get bloodshot, I will say that I do know there is a lot to Warcraft 3. You do not have to tell me that. I am aware of the mind game and the wealth of skill you need to master it. I know there are so many little things that players use to corner their opponent into an unfavourable position. But how much of it actually translates into a visual cue that is understandable not just for those that know the game really well?Let me tell you how an outsider sees Warcraft 3. It's two bunches of colourful units running in circles around the bush in the middle of the map for no apparent reason. Seriously, that's what it is.
By contrast, nothing gets more transparent than StarCraft. You have a clear front line, or a couple, and units just keep pouring into it (you can have two avalanches of units smashing into each other for four friggin' minutes, now how cool is that?). When more units die on one side of the front than on the other, the line moves and you can easily tell who is winning.
"A game needs to be transparent and easy to enjoy."
It may sound stupid to some, but how is a Quake or Counter-Strike player, let alone a non-gamer, supposed to enjoy a game where they cannot see who is winning? In Warcraft 3, they have a skirmish and run away. Then they run away again. And then you find out the guy that ran away is actually winning the game!?In order for a game to grow as a spectator sport, it needs to be able to attract more than just its own players. It needs to be transparent and easy to enjoy. And it needs to entice with infinite depth beneath the surface level.
In Warcraft 3 there is so much more to enjoy than meets the eye. Sadly, there is so little that does meet the eye.
RELATED NEWS
173 comments
Loading comments...
What you're doing is called an ad hominem fallacy, discrediting carmac with the belief he doesn't know enough, when I've proven he does, renders your arguement void in this case.
I don't understand all of the rules to curling, yet I watch it occasionally. As well with pool.
And no, I wouldn't expect you to write something like this if you haden't tested your theory on more then just your girlfriend. My point is that people will do as they wish, they have throughout history and will in the future.
Yes organizers should want to cator to spectators, especially ones such as us.
However, in this stage in e-sports it takes enough work just to get players interested and watching the games, let alone mainstream 'newbies' (new-bies, new people..not noobs)
However your article suggests points that I feel are simply explained as, personal preference.
Your article is about how SC is a much better choice over Wc3 from a spectator poit of view (correct me if I am wrong) But its not, the reason SC gets so much backing these days is because of the players and their dedication. As well the throng of Korean fan girls does nothing to hinder SC success either.
But do you think that if instead of SC they had chosen WC(Warcraft 2 back then) that wc3 would be just as popular and getting just as much "wc3>>SC" articles/threads/opinions/blogs etc? I think it would. SC and wc2 were very similar, sure one is space aged and the other is mythological, but they were played the same;
Units gather resources, resources fund further unit/building production. And finally expand/conquer the map (whiping out your enemy, or forcing them to concede) . Now with the addition of Heros into wc3, wc3 has become the paria of the two. Becuase suddenly, items and 'even more special abilities' made things more complex.
But if they had chosen wc2 back then, and the game changed. The fans/players would already be used to it, and adapt to the changes as the rest of us do.
Do you go to a store and purchase a video game (previously not knowing how to play it, rules etc are different or what have you) and then say "ok im not going to bother playing this because it is different from the last game I played and I do not wish to have fun by learning a new rule set.."
If so, then fuck e-sports. Because if you are so afraid of change and complexity (only one point im trying to make here is that most people like SC because it is far simpler to learn then wc3 is) and rather sit around for the next ten years playing a game (not because it is better) but because it is far simpler then another, then go for it. Kill e-sports.
(No, I am not saying there must be change in e-sports as far as new games are concerned. Anyone that knows me knows that I view e-sports like regular sports, soccer(football) has been around for a long time, with few-none rule changes. And I wish e-sports to be the same. But to come out and dumb down another game because it was "too hard to learn" makes me sick and if you are too stupid to follow a different set of rules or gameplay style then you have no business even dumbing down another game.)
You COULD put it that way. It's harder for people to get into and understand it just by watching it. Everything else you say belongs in a different thread.
Wc3 is one of those games. Everything is labeled in the game, from the items to the units and buildings. Not to mention there are shoutcasters for a reason. They can explain whats going on. So I fail to see why people make such a fuss about games being "too hard to understand".
In war3, heroes make the game more exciting (and more imba) because they can turn the tide of battle. DK/Lich running around killing all of the Human units on the field ending with a hero showdown. Games like Axlav's last second PotM arrow, or cadxcraft holding the archer onslaught with 1 blademaster. Sure it's fucking imba, but it makes for an incredibly entertaining game.
Starcraft is more entertaining for the untrained masses, but I think once you delve into both games, it's really just a preference thing.
When I watch a starcraft VOD, I know if something insane happens, there's going to be an insane reaction. From the crowd, from the commentators, from the players and coaches even! The fact that there's a scene makes a huge difference.
Obviously, WC3 is missing the gigantic scene, but I think there is a point to be made that it's missing a lot of action as well. I've played both WC3 and SC since their inceptions, and still enjoy playing both today. Unfortunately, as far as action goes, WC3 just isn't in the same realm as SC.
Why? Well, the culprit is at the root of WC3's gameplay. The amount of 'work' a unit has to accomplish is extremely high for it's cost. For example, in SC a 100 mineral Zealot kills two Drones and then dies. Was that worth the cost? Definitely. It was an even tradeoff in minerals, but it also slows down the Zerg mining, and makes them have to use precious larvae to replace the drones. When envisioning a scenario like the above in WC3, you have to factor in the huge cost of giving your opponent's hero the EXP for the unit(s) lost. Usually that outweighs the benefit, and rewards the cautious player. In this way, you end up with games that on average have less action and more downtime than a 45 minute TvT (watch Xellos vs Nada from a few days ago if you don't believe me).
Everything just seems to add up to make SC seem much more reasonable and enjoyable to spectators. The players are fighting over new and different territory all the time (new, exciting maps every few months make a big difference). Units die, and in large numbers. There's huge emphasis on map control. The crowd and commentators are going nuts when things happen. The zerg player pulls off an amazing two-pronged attack and comes back in a game he was losing with straight-up attacks. Stuff like that.
Where is all this in WC3? Low HP heroes and surrounds are only enjoyable to an extent! WC3 has it's share of amazing micro moves, but most of the common tricks are slow and predictable after just a short while. The game is incredibly fun and rewarding to play and master, but even when I was practicing a lot I found it hard to watch replays for more than just in depth analysis. Only a few interesting things happen every game, really.
I hate watching SC, because it has so bad graphics (I know it's old, old, but man, I can't look at a game with so bad graphics and enjoy).
WC3 is very exciting to me, because it's not just a mass murder of units, but the strategic usage of only a small number of units, in order to finish your opponent off.
When you play WC3, you must use your brain a lot, because the small moments, when you build or upgrade something are crucial, while in SC (which I have played for like, hmmm... 30 seconds), you already in the beginning have a spam of units.
I'm gonna be honest and say it's nice to have an article which is written by a guy who shares his views and tells us what he thinks.
Look at match statements for example...
Say MyM play Attax. MyM's statement will be something like... "We are hoping for a win, but we know Attax are really good and it will be close..."
The truth is, I'd much rather see MyM's statement as... "Today we play Attax, we are the clear favourites and anything less than a win will be disappointing..."
There's too many columnists/managers who will give statements/articles which will make them popular, giving bland comments so they don't sound arrogant or overconfident.
I want to read what the writer feels and what the writer is thinking.
Even if I don't agree with 100% of what you said Carmac, I respect you for writing the article in the way you have.
Good job man.
i play wc3...i follow the scene everyday...its very good game..
but when it comes to watching matches....starcraft just a lot better...even my 8 years old bro can enjoy it...so, i do agree with u carmac...
Whichever game you have more experience with, you'll prefer spectating.
If you have no experience in either, then your preference will depend on personal taste and accessibility.
Right now, I think Starcraft is the more accessible spectator game. Visually, it is more clear what is going on in a match, and gameplay revolves less around unique spells and abilities each with their esoteric animations (Think about how hard it is to learn DotA). Also, the commentating is superior and I believe that there are more resources (guides and community) out there for noobies trying to learn the basics.
Here are some youtube vids that some of you might be interested in. They are korean->english translation subtitles which will let you get an idea of what the korean commentators are blabbing about during a starcraft match.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=hideopalescent&view=videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=intothetlnet&view=videos