5 ms·

I should probably go back to playing this. I only got about halfway through the first campaign and never got around to installing heart of the swarm, even thoug

I should probably go back to playing this. I only got about halfway through the first campaign and never got around to installing heart of the swarm, even though I paid for it (like $20). I enjoyed the game, there's just too many damn games out there now vying for my attention. I wonder how much of an effect being free to play will boost its popularity for esports. I know Blizzard was pushing for it.

dmoy 9y ago
I guess it might boost it a little. But there's little to no chance it will become a really popular esport again... especially not when blizzard is putting so much focus on overwatch now. I mean like it'll be really difficult to beat out League of Legends for popularity now. Those tourney which just finished pulled like concurrent 15m viewers (significantly more than NHL finals).
- bagacrap 9y ago
  Is there an RTS that will replace it (besides bw)? RTS may be a relative niche but that doesn't mean it's disappearing. Lots of traditional sports persist indefinitely without ever reaching the popularity of (either kind of) football. To some extent, the less popular the sport the purer it remains as it's less likely to be subsumed by profit motives.
  - plopz 9y ago
    I think SC2 is in a pretty good place right now. The craziness of 2010-2014 was fun and exciting, but ultimately untenable for an RTS.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    I see a lot of new RTS games produced, but what I don't see is any reason to play them. They're pretty much the same as what we already have with different graphics and different tech trees. Different, but not better, or at least not appreciably so.
  - oneweekwonder 9y ago
    Little bit tongue in the cheek but littlewargame can be a contender :) http://www.littlewargame.com/ http://www.littlewargame.com/
- Retric 9y ago
  I much prefer SC2, but I agree League of Legends is really designed to be watched in a way that StarCraft 2 is not. A StarCraft 2 game can last anywhere from 5 minutes to 2+ hours. And they tend to stack so a series might take 20 minutes or 5 hours. Games often snowball from minor advantages so only a seconds of that may be really important. League of Legends games on the other hand have some back a forth and are bound fairly closely to 25 minutes at top play. Allowing for more bite sized games, you can also jump into the middle of a match and understand what's going on more easily. Even better, lower level games tend to more closely match top play like other sports.
  - giblaz 9y ago
    The problem with games like League & DotA is they're nearly impossible to understand what's going on as a spectator unless you already play the games. They're a victim of their own complexity - over 100 characters each with a minimum of 4 unique abilities. It makes major fights practically impossible to follow as a person who doesn't play the game. SC2, on the other hand, is much easier to grok as a spectator. It's 1v1, so you know each army is controlled by 1 player, and the capabilities of the units are far more obvious as well, since a lot of them are based on pre-existing science fiction concepts. League & Dota get far more viewers because the games are far more popular, however, as a spectator sport, they fall short because of their complexity.
    - vkou 9y ago
      > SC2, on the other hand, is much easier to grok as a spectator. It's 1v1, so you know each army is controlled by 1 player, and the capabilities of the units are far more obvious as well, since a lot of them are based on pre-existing science fiction concepts. The problem is that SC2 had very long periods of unwatchable metas. Twelve months of pro games consisting of two players building deathballs, having one battle (Where someone gets caught out of position, and loses their entire army in 5 seconds,) and the game ending was awful, as a spectator sport. (That was any Heart of the Swarm match involving Zerg in a nutshell.) I was like watching a chess game, that, at turn 15, if one side didn't have a clear advantage, getting decided by a coin flip. This may be fun from a player's perspective, but is awful as a spectator sport.
Havoc 9y ago
Heart of the swarm was the best of the three.

dmoy 9y ago

I guess it might boost it a little. But there's little to no chance it will become a really popular esport again... especially not when blizzard is putting so much focus on overwatch now. I mean like it'll be really difficult to beat out League of Legends for popularity now. Those tourney which just finished pulled like concurrent 15m viewers (significantly more than NHL finals).

bagacrap 9y ago
Is there an RTS that will replace it (besides bw)? RTS may be a relative niche but that doesn't mean it's disappearing. Lots of traditional sports persist indefinitely without ever reaching the popularity of (either kind of) football. To some extent, the less popular the sport the purer it remains as it's less likely to be subsumed by profit motives.
- plopz 9y ago
  I think SC2 is in a pretty good place right now. The craziness of 2010-2014 was fun and exciting, but ultimately untenable for an RTS.
- gozur88 9y ago
  I see a lot of new RTS games produced, but what I don't see is any reason to play them. They're pretty much the same as what we already have with different graphics and different tech trees. Different, but not better, or at least not appreciably so.
- oneweekwonder 9y ago
  Little bit tongue in the cheek but littlewargame can be a contender :) http://www.littlewargame.com/ http://www.littlewargame.com/
Retric 9y ago
I much prefer SC2, but I agree League of Legends is really designed to be watched in a way that StarCraft 2 is not. A StarCraft 2 game can last anywhere from 5 minutes to 2+ hours. And they tend to stack so a series might take 20 minutes or 5 hours. Games often snowball from minor advantages so only a seconds of that may be really important. League of Legends games on the other hand have some back a forth and are bound fairly closely to 25 minutes at top play. Allowing for more bite sized games, you can also jump into the middle of a match and understand what's going on more easily. Even better, lower level games tend to more closely match top play like other sports.
- giblaz 9y ago
  The problem with games like League & DotA is they're nearly impossible to understand what's going on as a spectator unless you already play the games. They're a victim of their own complexity - over 100 characters each with a minimum of 4 unique abilities. It makes major fights practically impossible to follow as a person who doesn't play the game. SC2, on the other hand, is much easier to grok as a spectator. It's 1v1, so you know each army is controlled by 1 player, and the capabilities of the units are far more obvious as well, since a lot of them are based on pre-existing science fiction concepts. League & Dota get far more viewers because the games are far more popular, however, as a spectator sport, they fall short because of their complexity.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > SC2, on the other hand, is much easier to grok as a spectator. It's 1v1, so you know each army is controlled by 1 player, and the capabilities of the units are far more obvious as well, since a lot of them are based on pre-existing science fiction concepts. The problem is that SC2 had very long periods of unwatchable metas. Twelve months of pro games consisting of two players building deathballs, having one battle (Where someone gets caught out of position, and loses their entire army in 5 seconds,) and the game ending was awful, as a spectator sport. (That was any Heart of the Swarm match involving Zerg in a nutshell.) I was like watching a chess game, that, at turn 15, if one side didn't have a clear advantage, getting decided by a coin flip. This may be fun from a player's perspective, but is awful as a spectator sport.

Havoc 9y ago

Heart of the swarm was the best of the three.