I partially disagree and you're still missing my point. It depends on what you mean exactly by strong initial impact. In industry that could mean the first trailer video you see, hype created by fans, screenshots, or playing the first 10 minutes of the game. I'm not disagreeing that good first impressions, in any form, can reflect a high quality game but there are also games that don't have the quality but make a good first impression.
I don't think it's hard for companies to exaggerate how awesome they want you to think their game is (through advertisement or other means). Unfortunately you have things like first person shooter clones which try to rip-off the popularity of the original or most innovative game.
Imo, the most reliable way to judge the quality of a game is to play it from start to finish so you're familiar with everything. Maybe even do another play through. If the game was able to keep your attention all the way through, it's likely high quality. If it only kept you around for the first few minutes or 1 hour, that's prob too much first impression showing off it did and too shallow of an entire game (like using pretty latest tech graphics or trying to copy/clone another game). It's easier to judge sc2 arcade games because they're typically much shorter than the average industry game.
Imo I believe the same applies to the sc2 arcade. People could fairly easily put alot of effort into the load screen or first few minutes of the game because it's the 'first impression'. Then if the game turns out not so good with balance issues or unsatisfying game play then people won't play anymore. I'm fairly certain people are very good at finding out the quality of a game by playing it from start to finish. If I want to save myself from playing a game before judging it, I try to learn what is unique about that game compared to similar games in that genre and use my own interest to get started. I'm a huge fan of newly invented games or innovations.
I don't think it's hard for companies to exaggerate how awesome they want you to think their game is (through advertisement or other means). Unfortunately you have things like first person shooter clones which try to rip-off the popularity of the original or most innovative game.
If you dont think its hard, then you are wrong. Creating a successfull hype wave for your game is a part of marketing and it is an art in itself. Creating hype is not easy and every company that manages to create a large amout of hype and publicity around their game through their promotional material has won a victory by that in itself, even though it does not necessarily reflect the quality the actual game is.
Imo, the most reliable way to judge the quality of a game is to play it from start to finish so you're familiar with everything. Maybe even do another play through. If the game was able to keep your attention all the way through, it's likely high quality. If it only kept you around for the first few minutes or 1 hour, that's prob too much first impression showing off it did and too shallow of an entire game (like using pretty latest tech graphics or trying to copy/clone another game). It's easier to judge sc2 arcade games because they're typically much shorter than the average industry game.
Wrong again. Each game is a seperate entity and needs to be judge on its own. What you say in this paragraph only reflects your own personal taste and what you are looking for in the games you play. However, that is something entirely different from quality. Not every game warrants a second playthrough, even though it could have been an amazing experience on the first playthrough. That is not a sign of quality, but rather a sign of a creative direction. If someone wants to tell an enticing and awesome experience that only really manages to click once, because everything is new and falls apart on a second playthrough, it still means its a great game, its just not one that is made to be played more than once. And it doesnt have to be if thats not what the creator was going for.
Only because a game doesnt suit your personal taste, it doesnt mean its not a quality game. Art is not for everyone.
Imo I believe the same applies to the sc2 arcade. People could fairly easily put alot of effort into the load screen or first few minutes of the game because it's the 'first impression'. Then if the game turns out not so good with balance issues or unsatisfying game play then people won't play anymore. I'm fairly certain people are very good at finding out the quality of a game by playing it from start to finish. If I want to save myself from playing a game before judging it, I try to learn what is unique about that game compared to similar games in that genre and use my own interest to get started. I'm a huge fan of newly invented games or innovations.
Now lets get down to the whole "initial impression" issue. First of all, the things that apply to actual games do not apply to most maps on the SC2 Arcade, very likely including yours. SC2 Arcade maps usually dont have marketing behind it.
Also, when I refer to "initial impression", I refer to what kind of an initial impact the game has on you when you first start it up and play it for a few minutes. Marketing is not taken into consideration here, marketing and the actual game should always be measured as two different things.
Again, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong when you say its easy to create a great initial impression. Because its not, its a very challenging and hard thing to do and takes alot of experience. Seriously, try it, Im pretty certain you will fail miserably. There are very very few maps on the Arcade that have a great initial impression, the only one I can think of was an earlier version of that one top-down Tank Shooter map (forgot the name).
Also, you seem to completely fail to understand that the initial impression, the first impact a game has on you, needs to be considered when judging the overall quality. Additionally to that, the phrase "quality game" is completely meaningless. You cant be like "that game had a great initial impression, much wow, but then I played more of it and its not a quality game", because that makes no sense at all. If the initial impression left you in awe and had an impact on you, then that means that is a quality that game has to it. The rest of the game may not be good, but you still have to give the game credit for doing something great. Does that mean its not a "quality game"? It doesnt matter, because that term is meaningless because everyone judges the overall quality of a game on different things. Some may really value the initial impression a game has and when that impression is great and the rest is not, he might still considere it a game worth playing, even though you would not. Its personal preference, not quality.
I, for one, would really welcome a few more games on the Arcade that had a really outstanding great moment that leaves one in awe (be it the initial 5 minutes or some other moment), because its something that I really value when playing games. Im tired of all these colorless maps on the Arcade that have no personality, even if they may have some decent mechanics. Often times, I might even forgive bad mechanics if the game is presented in an outstanding fashion. I might not play it again and again, but maybe the game wasnt supposed to be played again and again, but instead leave an impression.
We don't have to do much selling. The arcade system works takes time but works. Those that think it doesn't just don't want to admit that their game just isn't that good.
It's like one of the oldest lesson in business is it not?
An individual with an amazing product but not a clue how to sell it will fail. An invidiual with an average product but skillful at presenting and selling it will do well.
This example falls flat though if the "presentation", as in, the strong initial impact, is a part of the product itself and as such needs to be considered when evaluating the complete product.
I wasn't implying that and you know it(if you didn't, please read my statement again. CAREFULLY). I'm just saying that the competition is stacked in their favour, overshadowing games that don't have a good initial impact but are great games in the long run.
It's possible for quality games to have a strong initial impact but it's also possible to have games that are terrible but have a strong initial impact (with good graphics, advertising, or something). I agree with Kildare that the problem needs to be addressed. Just so we don't get another Nexus Wars or Top Played first page where alot of people are very biased to a very particular game type.
EDIT: As a good start to fixing this problem I suggest the only people who can vote in the contest are those who've participated in sc2mapster's map night at least once. I love how they provide very detailed and useful feedback and try to see the strengths of the map.
How bad can a map really be if it has a strong initial impact? Thats an accomplishment in itself. If maps with a strong initial impact are favored because thats what people want, then so be it, no need to artifically control the results of the contest based on what a few people on mapsters considere to be "great maps".
Err, the problem is that I AM talking about supporting quality games. At the moment the competition seems to give an advantage towards those that either already has a good solid fan base going or those that can provide a strong INITIAL impact.
Implying that a strong initial impact cant be a sign of a quality game.
I personally would love it if they could enter. I love all of the members of the SCU development team but no offense, I think the community of map developers can come up with something more innovative and fun than WoW + Starcraft.
We have updated the ruleset and now GERMANY, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND, RUSSIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, CROATIA, THE UKRAINE, POLAND, BULGARIA AND HUNGARY are included. Unfortunately due to many regulations for contests in different countries it is not always possible to include all countries though we would like to. Here in this case however it was a mistake that we didn't have those added from the start.
"@Goa: If I recall correctly, it's because those countries or states have strict gambling/competition for monitory prizes laws that disallow or make it very difficult for their residents to participate in competitions like this. I know Desrow and Major have had difficulty playing in SC2 tournaments because of these laws. "
Uhm... no. Alot of the countries excluded from the list were allowed to participate in the Blizzcon contests, so there is no reason for these countries not to be listed here.
I dont miss your point. I disagree with it.
Lets pick this post apart piece by piece.
If you dont think its hard, then you are wrong. Creating a successfull hype wave for your game is a part of marketing and it is an art in itself. Creating hype is not easy and every company that manages to create a large amout of hype and publicity around their game through their promotional material has won a victory by that in itself, even though it does not necessarily reflect the quality the actual game is.
Wrong again. Each game is a seperate entity and needs to be judge on its own. What you say in this paragraph only reflects your own personal taste and what you are looking for in the games you play. However, that is something entirely different from quality. Not every game warrants a second playthrough, even though it could have been an amazing experience on the first playthrough. That is not a sign of quality, but rather a sign of a creative direction. If someone wants to tell an enticing and awesome experience that only really manages to click once, because everything is new and falls apart on a second playthrough, it still means its a great game, its just not one that is made to be played more than once. And it doesnt have to be if thats not what the creator was going for.
Only because a game doesnt suit your personal taste, it doesnt mean its not a quality game. Art is not for everyone.
Now lets get down to the whole "initial impression" issue. First of all, the things that apply to actual games do not apply to most maps on the SC2 Arcade, very likely including yours. SC2 Arcade maps usually dont have marketing behind it.
Also, when I refer to "initial impression", I refer to what kind of an initial impact the game has on you when you first start it up and play it for a few minutes. Marketing is not taken into consideration here, marketing and the actual game should always be measured as two different things.
Again, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong when you say its easy to create a great initial impression. Because its not, its a very challenging and hard thing to do and takes alot of experience. Seriously, try it, Im pretty certain you will fail miserably. There are very very few maps on the Arcade that have a great initial impression, the only one I can think of was an earlier version of that one top-down Tank Shooter map (forgot the name).
Also, you seem to completely fail to understand that the initial impression, the first impact a game has on you, needs to be considered when judging the overall quality. Additionally to that, the phrase "quality game" is completely meaningless. You cant be like "that game had a great initial impression, much wow, but then I played more of it and its not a quality game", because that makes no sense at all. If the initial impression left you in awe and had an impact on you, then that means that is a quality that game has to it. The rest of the game may not be good, but you still have to give the game credit for doing something great. Does that mean its not a "quality game"? It doesnt matter, because that term is meaningless because everyone judges the overall quality of a game on different things. Some may really value the initial impression a game has and when that impression is great and the rest is not, he might still considere it a game worth playing, even though you would not. Its personal preference, not quality.
I, for one, would really welcome a few more games on the Arcade that had a really outstanding great moment that leaves one in awe (be it the initial 5 minutes or some other moment), because its something that I really value when playing games. Im tired of all these colorless maps on the Arcade that have no personality, even if they may have some decent mechanics. Often times, I might even forgive bad mechanics if the game is presented in an outstanding fashion. I might not play it again and again, but maybe the game wasnt supposed to be played again and again, but instead leave an impression.
This is definately a thing.
This man speaks the truth.
This example falls flat though if the "presentation", as in, the strong initial impact, is a part of the product itself and as such needs to be considered when evaluating the complete product.
How bad can a map really be if it has a strong initial impact? Thats an accomplishment in itself. If maps with a strong initial impact are favored because thats what people want, then so be it, no need to artifically control the results of the contest based on what a few people on mapsters considere to be "great maps".
Implying that a strong initial impact cant be a sign of a quality game.
You malificent entity.
Well, yeah I guess thats true.
Also, you guys are forgetting that SCU probably wont be in any condition to participate in such a contest in 4 months.
Russian is a race?
Awesome, thanks alot!
Uhm... no. Alot of the countries excluded from the list were allowed to participate in the Blizzcon contests, so there is no reason for these countries not to be listed here.
Germany isnt allowed to participate? Wut?