Preface: Yeah, check the join date, I joined during the SC2 beta where I heard TL was to Starcraft 2, EJ was to WoW. Before I joined, I had a tangential relationship at best with the BW scene: I beat my friends at it with DT rushes and occasionally watched a Korean do unreasonably awesome things with it whenever it was linked to me by a 3rd party. So yeah, I'm from the SC2 generation: deal with it.
OK, I get it, this has been a BW site for a long ass time before SC2 was even on the drawing board, but that doesn't mean we have to compare them in every other post. While it's died down some, you still can't get a thread going long enough in the SC2 forums before someone mentions how it was so much better in BW or how lurkers should be in SC2 or how micro was more important in BW, etc. Here's the kicker: None of that shit matters at all. Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
SC1 was revolutionary for the time, but now it's outdated, and 90% of the things you're bitching about (reduced micro potential, et al) are actually improvements rather than problems. Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
People wanting old units/voices/music/micro/etc are too blinded by nostalgia to enjoy the greatest RTS to come out in the last 5 years at least, and it's time SC2 was judged on its own merits or at least against its peers, rather than against a game whose only leg up on SC2 is the same name and nostalgia. So get over it and move on if you want to post about SC2 or in the SC2 forums. Otherwise stick to BW and keep your shit out of my areas.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
i'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue what the hell is going on do you?
Why shouldn't we compare it to scbw? The format is similar - however the best reason to compare the two games is that broodwar is the epitome of competitive gaming - its simply the best game that has ever come out. It has the best balance, amazingly high skill gap, ridiculous mechanics, and the hardest to master game ever. If a board game comes out that people claim as being the best game ever, isn't it fair to compare it to chess and Go?
Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
Stopped reading right there.
On a side note, BW is considered to be the best RTS at balancing and skill cap. If SC2 is not comparing itself to the best RTS out there, then I don't know what is it trying to do.
If you wish the BW people not to hijack the SC2 forum, you can just ask. Insulting the game won't help at all.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
i'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue what the hell is going on do you?
Is a clear example of why SC2 recieves a lot of heat from BW fans, simply because its arrival threatens the BW community more than any other game. That being said as long as they dont destroy each other in the end I'm sure the outcome will be 'favorable' at best.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
Are you saying that Starcraft: BW isn't an RTS?
And aren't you doing the same thing as the people who compare BW to SC2? Complaining about the differences between the games? I'm confused.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
i'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue what the hell is going on do you?
Is a clear example of why SC2 recieves a lot of heat from BW fans, simply because its arrival threatens the BW community more than any other game. That being said as long as they dont destroy each other in the end I'm sure the outcome will be 'favorable' at best.
Well the OP contradicted himself, unless he was under the impression that BW was NOT in fact a legitimate RTS, which is wrong. And if so, ruins his credibility. Er, at least, that's what I assumed.
And SC2 only effects the BW community in terms of Progaming, the game itself will still have a huge fanbase.
i think one of the problems is that many people grew up with BW they grow attached to it and then SC2 comes out, and now they're older and able to pick out the flaws of something instead of blindly thinking something is awesome also, there's the fact that BW took like 10 years to get awesome and a ton of people are complaining about how there won't be any creativity in SC2 even though it's only been out for 2 months
You do know people compare stuff to good or proven stuff? Read any car and driver magazine when they do a review on a sports sedan. 9 times out of 10 they will compare it to a BMW 3 series sedan(Not related except for the fact they are both Sport Sedans(RTS games with mostly the same things).
I do get sick of the BW vs SC2 debacle but that is something else.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
i'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue what the hell is going on do you?
And Starcraft 2 and BW are not just competitors, they're integral to each others existence. BW built this house, this isn't "your areas". Even if you're not a fan of BW, know your history, or don't attempt to argue it.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies, in a thread called "Rant 1: STOP with the damn BW Comparisons", wrote: Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
SC1 was revolutionary for the time, but now it's outdated, and 90% of the things you're bitching about (reduced micro potential, et al) are actually improvements rather than problems. Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
How do you want people to take you seriously when your points are so ridiculously wrong and over-exaggerated, while at the same time completely contradicting the very title of your post?
I do agree (partly) with the title though. Good job on that at least.
Really dude? I love BW to death and still think its the greatest RTS ever made. Comparison to BW is not the problem, the problem is people not giving SC2 a chance. Blantly saying its bad from now doesnt make sense to me. In addition , dont talk like you lived the whole BW scene, because trust me if you weren't there during the Daum OSL finals watching GGplay vs Iris then you have no idea how much BW means to people and why we always compare SC2 to it.
to me what makes BW great isnt just the content of the game (units and balance etc) but the interface itself is half the fun. has it occurred to you that a mechanically-challenging game is part of what makes it fun? why do you think fighting games have more than 2 buttons?
although yea i think it's stupid whenever I see people turning threads into SC2 vs BW all the time (this happens a LOT in BW forum). but there's not much you can do about that until sc2 isnt so new.
On September 25 2010 05:12 DragoonPK wrote: Really dude? I love BW to death and still think its the greatest RTS ever made. Comparison to BW is not the problem, the problem is people not giving SC2 a chance. Blantly saying its bad from now doesnt make sense to me. In addition , dont talk like you lived the whole BW scene, because trust me if you weren't there during the Daum OSL finals watching GGplay vs Iris then you have no idea how much BW means to people and why we always compare SC2 to it.
this thread is probably going to get closed but I want to ask you something about this (not trying to start any flaming btw though). I played the beta for a good 100+ hours and then during release for about 2 weeks before giving SC2 up for good (havent played since then). do you think I gave it enough of a chance?
I just found the game so much less engaging to play (and even more-so to watch).
My main issue is with the korean proscene. Ofc sc2 is in its infant stage, which makes it at least from spectators point of view, not as exciting as SCBW. This will only get better with time, but I cant get over the fact that Blizzard are forcing THIS game at its current stage in the korean scene and basically claiming rights and shutting down smth, that has been in the gamers folklore around the world for a decade and that STILL has plenty more to give. Im not saying SC2 is a flop, it will certainly get as exciting to watch as BW if not more at some point in time, but damn, I dont want to watch this shit right now, I want to watch the Proleague with all the great players and teams, I want NaDa to make another glorious run for his 4th MSL. But because of Blizzard, their moneycraze policy and SC2 this wont happen.
LOLOLOLOLOLoLOL bw has worse sound and voice acting? Oh my, u haven't played it have u. Can't take u seriously after something that stupid hahahahahhah
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
So you preface your argument by stating that SC2 should not be compared to SC1, and then follow that up by comparing SC2 to SC1. Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
Honestly, I don't really care if the 2 games are treated separately, but it's posts like this that make me upset.
SC1 was revolutionary for the time, but now it's outdated, and 90% of the things you're bitching about (reduced micro potential, et al) are actually improvements rather than problems. Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
That's what made Starcraft: BW that much of a better game. There was a lot more to the game to master besides the basic things. With the reduced micro potential and whatnot, it essentially lowers the peak skill required to play at high levels. I really have to disagree with your rant, though. The reason why people compare SC:BW and SC2 is not a bad thing is because BW is the measuring stick of most other RTS games. If you've read Beowulf, BW would be the equivalent of Shild Scilding.
On September 25 2010 05:12 DragoonPK wrote: Really dude? I love BW to death and still think its the greatest RTS ever made. Comparison to BW is not the problem, the problem is people not giving SC2 a chance. Blantly saying its bad from now doesnt make sense to me. In addition , dont talk like you lived the whole BW scene, because trust me if you weren't there during the Daum OSL finals watching GGplay vs Iris then you have no idea how much BW means to people and why we always compare SC2 to it.
this thread is probably going to get closed but I want to ask you something about this (not trying to start any flaming btw though). I played the beta for a good 100+ hours and then during release for about 2 weeks before giving SC2 up for good (havent played since then). do you think I gave it enough of a chance?
I just found the game so much less engaging to play (and even more-so to watch).
Yeah true, right now SC2 is not as good as BW, but I think there is a lot of potential you know? Maybe a years time?
SC1 was the better game though. Mechanically it required so much more, there was so much depth, and much greater spectator value than what we have from SC2 so far.
I do not really get as excited watching SC2 plays than something incredibly difficult to pull off in SC1 because in SC2 I know even if someone like Tester can do it, someone else in diamond also can do something very similar. That's a slight exaggeration, but there is a lot of truth in it too.
Especially, since cloning is made easy by smart casting.
I think a shallow comparison to BW is valid (ie. mechanics, UI, gameplay, etc.). Comparing the depth of strategy and tactics isn't too valid, yet. I think some people have been taking it to one extreme, and you took it pretty far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
On September 25 2010 05:41 Chill wrote: I think a shallow comparison to BW is valid (ie. mechanics, UI, gameplay, etc.). Comparing the depth of strategy and tactics isn't too valid, yet. I think some people have been taking it to one extreme, and you took it pretty far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Yeah pretty much. I agree with your sentiments, OP, but you butchered the execution.
But yeah, far, far too many people keep trying to compare things to BW when it's not even a valid comparison. I can't stand the 'This is how this unit worked in bw' or 'this is how this strat worked in bw' arguments. It's not fucking BW!!!!!!
No, you see SC2 is competing with BW. It can´t be competing with those other RTS games cos they are utter crap compared to BW. BW is the only real competitive RTS ever and SC2 pretty much tries to be exactly the same with updated graphics and gameplay changes.
And all you say about BW is bad trolling anyways...maybe you should´ve done something else than DT´s the times you played.
On September 25 2010 05:41 Chill wrote: I think a shallow comparison to BW is valid (ie. mechanics, UI, gameplay, etc.). Comparing the depth of strategy and tactics isn't too valid, yet. I think some people have been taking it to one extreme, and you took it pretty far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Seems like Chill is always there to make the moderate opinion I want to :/
On September 25 2010 05:12 DragoonPK wrote: Really dude? I love BW to death and still think its the greatest RTS ever made. Comparison to BW is not the problem, the problem is people not giving SC2 a chance. Blantly saying its bad from now doesnt make sense to me. In addition , dont talk like you lived the whole BW scene, because trust me if you weren't there during the Daum OSL finals watching GGplay vs Iris then you have no idea how much BW means to people and why we always compare SC2 to it.
this thread is probably going to get closed but I want to ask you something about this (not trying to start any flaming btw though). I played the beta for a good 100+ hours and then during release for about 2 weeks before giving SC2 up for good (havent played since then). do you think I gave it enough of a chance?
I just found the game so much less engaging to play (and even more-so to watch).
Yeah true, right now SC2 is not as good as BW, but I think there is a lot of potential you know? Maybe a years time?
maybe ill try it again in a year, but I just dont see how so many people are abandoning the clearly superior game right now.
the most fun I had in SC2 was trying to perfect a new BO and coming up with strats and counters by myself, which admittedly is really hard to do in BW.
where SC2 loses me is on so many other levels though, not just UI and mechanical (lack of) depth. i hate how shallow most units are, the way the matchups work, the way the maps are, the way it blows as a spectator sport, the entire design of zerg, complete lack of interesting micro, etc . while some of these things MAY get improved in time, I think a lot of it will always be the same (for instance, mutalisks will ALWAYS be super fucking lame compared to BW mutas, high ground will NEVER have a real advantage any more, etc) and that there's nothing that can be done with the current SC2 model without drastic redesigns that will never happen. maybe sc3 will stand a better chance but just adding in 2 more units per race wont fix a lot of these problems (although there's a CHANCE that some real micro won't be discovered, we've already seen blizzard remove some of it as they did to the infestor trick).
Did you play CN or Galava btw? Your name sounds familiar
I think some BW players take their glorification of BW way to far and that it can get out of hand, but no comparison to BW at all is also a bad thing. There's a middle ground that is slowly being reached I think.
On September 25 2010 05:41 Chill wrote: I think a shallow comparison to BW is valid (ie. mechanics, UI, gameplay, etc.). Comparing the depth of strategy and tactics isn't too valid, yet. I think some people have been taking it to one extreme, and you took it pretty far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Seems like Chill is always there to make the moderate opinion I want to :/
Whenever chill posts in a blog you pretty much have to agree. D:
How stupid can you be? Not only do you have the tenacity to propose an invalid argument, you fail to validate yourself...
Brood War is considered the most balanced RTS and is held in highest conceivable rank in terms of Real Time Strategy games. If, SC2 isn't attempting to compare itself to the best, than what is it doing?
As a SC:BW fan since the time of Boxer until present day, as someone who played in the SC2 Beta and continue to play SC2 until this day, it is my opinion that SC:BW is a much better RTS game in terms of strategic depth.
Obviously, SC2 has better graphics and a much easier interface. That's about all it's good for.
I even feel that recently I have grown extremely bored of SC2 because of the game's simplicity. I don't know, maybe strategies haven't been more developed. This extreme feeling of boredom often takes over me when I 1a a group of 24 vikings into wiping out all enemy air, or 1a a control group of 8 voidrays and 6 colossus into win. Especially in 3v3's.
On September 25 2010 06:04 Otakusan wrote: I even feel that recently I have grown extremely bored of SC2 because of the game's simplicity. I don't know, maybe strategies haven't been more developed. This extreme feeling of boredom often takes over me when I 1a a group of 24 vikings into wiping out all enemy air, or 1a a control group of 8 voidrays and 6 colossus into win. Especially in 3v3's.
Try playing better people who don't let you mass up an army like that?? I mean, come on, of all the arguments to present... There is a whole lot of shit you have to do to get to the point of having an army like that, and unless you are playing a total moron who lets you do that, it's not nearly as easy as you are making it to be.
On September 25 2010 06:07 Garrl wrote: I hate doing this but:
Joined TL.net Friday, 23rd of April 2010
you know he(OP) even said that himself in the like 1st paragraph of the post, right?
Yes, and he also demonstrated perfectly why the "BW-generation" scoffs at the "SC2-generation" so often. The OP pretty much followed all of the stereotypes perfectly.
-only caring about graphics and system, check -dismissing BW as a shitty 10-year-old game, check -acting like he knows anything about the BW scene when in reality he just joined for SC2 and hasn't been paying attention to anything else, check -just making stupid posts in general, check
On September 25 2010 06:07 Garrl wrote: I hate doing this but:
Joined TL.net Friday, 23rd of April 2010
you know he(OP) even said that himself in the like 1st paragraph of the post, right?
Yes, and he also demonstrated perfectly why the "BW-generation" scoffs at the "SC2-generation" so often. The OP pretty much followed all of the stereotypes perfectly.
-only caring about graphics and system, check -dismissing BW as a shitty 10-year-old game, check -acting like he knows anything about the BW scene when in reality he just joined for SC2 and hasn't been paying attention to anything else, check -just making stupid posts in general, check
Hmm, I'm part of this fabled BW generation, and as I stated before, I agree with the general gist of his arguement, but not really how he presented it. As did Chill. Pretty sure he's been around a long time too!
And never mind that. I'm more interested how you got your checklist from this: "Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true."
It says nothing about him caring about only graphics. It says nothing about it being a shitty game. (Actually quite the opposite: "SC1 was revolutionary for the time" Perhaps you need to update your thesaurus.) He calls it buggy—that's absolutely impossible to argue.
Besides shitting on the thread, what are you doing?? Sure as hell ain't contributing.
On September 25 2010 06:07 Garrl wrote: I hate doing this but:
Joined TL.net Friday, 23rd of April 2010
you know he(OP) even said that himself in the like 1st paragraph of the post, right?
Yes, and he also demonstrated perfectly why the "BW-generation" scoffs at the "SC2-generation" so often. The OP pretty much followed all of the stereotypes perfectly.
-only caring about graphics and system, check -dismissing BW as a shitty 10-year-old game, check -acting like he knows anything about the BW scene when in reality he just joined for SC2 and hasn't been paying attention to anything else, check -just making stupid posts in general, check
Hmm, I'm part of this fabled BW generation, and as I stated before, I agree with the general gist of his arguement, but not really how he presented it. As did Chill. Pretty sure he's been around a long time too!
And never mind that. I'm more interested how you got your checklist from this: "Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true."
It says nothing about him caring about only graphics. It says nothing about it being a shitty game. (Actually quite the opposite: "SC1 was revolutionary for the time" Perhaps you need to update your thesaurus.) He calls it buggy—that's absolutely impossible to argue.
Besides shitting on the thread, what are you doing?? Sure as hell ain't contributing.
I think the problem people have in this thread is that he's telling us to stop bitching about Starcraft II and saying how it's so easy with mbs and 144 unit selection, its sounds aren't recognizable, the graphics make for a worse viewing experience, lower potential skill cap etc. (i.e. all the bad points when compared to SC:BW) and in his OP he goes and lists only what Starcraft II does better than SC:BW (i.e. comparing the two games favorable to the SCII side, exactly how the people he condemns does it but on a different side).
He basically says, "Don't compare SCII to SC:BW. Here's a list of things SCII does better than SC:BW when I compare them. SCII is a better game [when you compare them] but you're all too blinded to enjoy it. Only compare SCII to RTS games made today, not to SC:BW."
That's kinda insane logic, telling us to recognize SCII as a better game cause all the points SC:BW people have are invalid due to nostalgia, not actual facts.
Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
#1: I bought SC in 2006, played SP for like 10 mins and then went back to CoD2 or WoW or whatever. I too joined with the SC2 buzz - no nostalgia here
#2: Sound and voice acting quality has been important since when? there are sound effects and they are easily recognizable, that's all you need in a competitive rts.
#3: Did it hurt? no. Is it true? sure. These are the things that make bw what it is. Many of the worst features of SC2 are the things that they "fixed" from bw. Think about it; no bugs means no muta stacking. No shitty pathing means no incredible micro.
urgh
p.s. If bw UI is so terrible, why is your SC2 ui the same but more shiny? shouldn't that have been "fixed" with all the other good things about bw?
In a more on topic tone, you really want people not to compare a game to its prequel? That's not going to happen in the world I live in.
edit: Having reread my post it seems like I think SC2 is the aborted child of Satan and Hitler. This is not the case, SC2 is kinda fun, but the OP just made me fucking rage. That is all.
Stop BW and SC2 comparisons with a comparison thread!
Honestly, I find that SC2 is pretty, but can be so damn boring while BW is ugly, but has more fast paced action with more to do. Simplicity isn't very fun
So seriously... I would punch you in the face if I knew you -_-
Everything you listed as a "Problem" from BW is what made the game great. And your whole spiel about beating the game and not your opponent is complete bullshit. The game is so basic that it requires much more micro and management than SC2, that can be agreed upon by EVERYONE.
On September 25 2010 06:07 Garrl wrote: I hate doing this but:
Joined TL.net Friday, 23rd of April 2010
you know he(OP) even said that himself in the like 1st paragraph of the post, right?
Yes, and he also demonstrated perfectly why the "BW-generation" scoffs at the "SC2-generation" so often. The OP pretty much followed all of the stereotypes perfectly.
-only caring about graphics and system, check -dismissing BW as a shitty 10-year-old game, check -acting like he knows anything about the BW scene when in reality he just joined for SC2 and hasn't been paying attention to anything else, check -just making stupid posts in general, check
I completely agree with this. Every person who doesn't like BW has this list to fall back on and try to make their point. Accurate.
I haven't heard of TeamLiquid before registering, and came and registered only because it was useful for my exploration of SC2 at that time. However, since then I followed dozens (maybe hundreds) of matches and VODs from the BW leagues. And I must admit SC2 has major issues to live up to the level of complexity and entertainment that BW has settled. I still appreciate both games though, because they have different qualities. My point is; to assume BW is somehow deficient looks very weird, once you get to know it better. Really, quite the opposite.
For the moment, BW can't replace SC2 and SC2 can't replace BW. And it seems they will have to find ways to co-exist.
If the game is a sequel to a game, of course it has comparisons. Its only logical. And the micro in sc2 sucks. The vulture micro and muta micro was actually HARD in bw, and there were different types of micro like patrol micro and hold micro, and stuff like that. In SC2, Im a zerg player, but i can micro hellions and reapers almost like a pro, because its just move hold move hold
1. Start blog petitioning to stop bickering between fans of BW and SC2 2. Brazenly call BW a shitty game 3. Indirectly insult people who love BW and BW esports 4. Expect people to take you seriously
The problem with sc2 for me is, its just so fucking boring.
I originally came for TL for sc2, but after i started playing sc2 i started getting curious with BW, so i would play it occasionally when the beta was down or after a long streak of games, but eventually i started liking it more and more, and then i started playing less sc2 and more BW, and then eventually i pretty much just stopped playing sc2 all together, BW was just so much more fun and challenging, sc2 felt like simplified mind games more then an RTS, i might check in on sc2 every now and then just see how things are developing, but i just cant play sc2 over BW anymore.
On September 25 2010 06:07 Garrl wrote: I hate doing this but:
Joined TL.net Friday, 23rd of April 2010
you know he(OP) even said that himself in the like 1st paragraph of the post, right?
Yes, and he also demonstrated perfectly why the "BW-generation" scoffs at the "SC2-generation" so often. The OP pretty much followed all of the stereotypes perfectly.
-only caring about graphics and system, check -dismissing BW as a shitty 10-year-old game, check -acting like he knows anything about the BW scene when in reality he just joined for SC2 and hasn't been paying attention to anything else, check -just making stupid posts in general, check
Hmm, I'm part of this fabled BW generation, and as I stated before, I agree with the general gist of his arguement, but not really how he presented it. As did Chill. Pretty sure he's been around a long time too!
Yup, I agree with the title, too.
On September 25 2010 06:37 Hawk wrote: And never mind that. I'm more interested how you got your checklist from this: "Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true."
It says nothing about him caring about only graphics. It says nothing about it being a shitty game. (Actually quite the opposite: "SC1 was revolutionary for the time" Perhaps you need to update your thesaurus.)
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
huh, interesting
On September 25 2010 06:37 Hawk wrote: He calls it buggy—that's absolutely impossible to argue.
Besides shitting on the thread, what are you doing?? Sure as hell ain't contributing.
1. I'm shitting on the thread because it's a shitty thread started by a shitty OP. (Edit: I suppose that the thread's not shitty. It's spawned some intelligent discussion. But I stand by my point that the original post was stupid.) 2. I was responding to the person I quoted, expressing that just because the OP points out that he's one of the "SC2 generation" doesn't make his argument any less becoming of the negative stereotypes associated with that generation.
My point is that the OP made a stupid post. I'm not the only person in this thread that's said that.
Maybe in the future sc3 we'll have bots playing for us and we'll just kinda sit back and enjoy the show. Why macro or micro or do anything when the AI could do it for you? Big nuisance really.
On September 25 2010 08:13 One wrote: The problem with sc2 for me is, its just so fucking boring.
I originally came for TL for sc2, but after i started playing sc2 i started getting curious with BW, so i would play it occasionally when the beta was down or after a long streak of games, but eventually i started liking it more and more, and then i started playing less sc2 and more BW, and then eventually i pretty much just stopped playing sc2 all together, BW was just so much more fun and challenging, sc2 felt like simplified mind games more then an RTS, i might check in on sc2 every now and then just see how things are developing, but i just cant play sc2 over BW anymore.
The OP really is a joke to me and i think the point of this thread has no sense, besides the name of it. But i would like to highlight your post to show the bw community that it is possible and people like you exist and could help the foreign bw community to maintain and maybe raise again. The best option to me is that SC2 and BW should co-exist as different games. Both should have tournaments and prize money involved, but unfortunately the current situation is that SC2 stole everything from BW, which is really pitty!
and by the way: BW has way better and user friendly graphics than SC2, at least i like it more
SC1 was revolutionary for the time, but now it's outdated, and 90% of the things you're bitching about (reduced micro potential, et al) are actually improvements rather than problems. Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
Geez, is BW's interface really *that* bad? Sure, I'll occasionally rage when my Dragoons or Goliaths get stuck on a ramp or I run out of hotkeys for my army because of the 12 unit selection cap or I accidentally have all my HT storm in the same spot wasting all their energy because there's no smartcasting... but for the most part, I never felt like I was "fighting" the game itself. I tell units to go there, and for the most part they'll do it. I want them to retreat, they'll do it. I want my probes to go mine, they do it.
Guess what? That bugginess added to the depth of the game, that's why it's so loved. I really don't even think it's about mechanical skill, that's boring in and of itself. What's awesome is seeing that skill fester into new strategies being viable that takes the game further. If SC2 has any mechanics that increased skill can improve, then it would be great to find them.
And there's nothing wrong with comparing the depth of SC2 with it's predecessor, SC1. In fact, we should be comparing SC2 to SC1, because it is the game to compare to, and SC2 isn't trying to be new, it's trying to expand what grew out of BW. That doesn't mean the two have to play the same, by any means. We don't necessarily need Muta stacking, hold Lurkers, worker drilling, or ghosting cloned in SC2 to make this game good. But we need something out there to give SC2 something to work for. If Blizzard doesn't even try to make it as deep, then what's the point?
And in the end not everyone is going to like it. You get over it.
It's funny that you say we shouldn't compare the two games, but when I hear Day9 make comparisons to Broodwar to explain SC2 strategy it makes the most sense to me. Because the game is so established and he knows what he's talking about, whenever he explains something that happens in BW and relates it to SC2, it makes absolutely perfect sense to me. I don't know how you can possibly say that's a bad thing.
I see Chill, LunarDestiny, DoctorHelvetica and matjlav beat me to the punch. Well, whatever.
On September 25 2010 04:46 deth2munkies wrote: Preface: Yeah, check the join date, I joined during the SC2 beta where I heard TL was to Starcraft 2, EJ was to WoW. Before I joined, I had a tangential relationship at best with the BW scene: I beat my friends at it with DT rushes and occasionally watched a Korean do unreasonably awesome things with it whenever it was linked to me by a 3rd party. So yeah, I'm from the SC2 generation: deal with it.
Bringing this up and making a big deal of it weakens the validity of your opinions more than the fact that you're new, because it so obviously gives no credit to the people with whom you are trying to communicate.
I don't dismiss people out of hand for lack of long term experience.
OK, I get it, this has been a BW site for a long ass time before SC2 was even on the drawing board, but that doesn't mean we have to compare them in every other post. While it's died down some, you still can't get a thread going long enough in the SC2 forums before someone mentions how it was so much better in BW or how lurkers should be in SC2 or how micro was more important in BW, etc. Here's the kicker: None of that shit matters at all. Starcraft 2 is not attempting to compete with Starcraft 1, it is attempting to compete with Dawn of War, Total War, and other RTS series out today.
Blatantly incorrect.
StarCraft 2 is directly competing with StarCraft 1. It has been ever since its announcement. It's trying to replace it, it's trying to supplant the old in the hearts and minds of fans, it's trying to squeeze out current competing SC1 eSports venues to enrich its own.
As LunarDestiny so poignantly put it: SC/BW is considered to be the best RTS with regards to balancing and skill cap. That's why it's still a competitive sport. SC2 would have no business in the eSports industry if it wasn't trying to compete with it.
Let's take a non-nostalgia tinted comparison of SC1 vs SC2. SC1 is a buggy game with shit graphics, terrible UI, terrible AI and unit pathing, and sub par sound and voice acting. Did that hurt? It's true.
Did I say I don't dismiss people out of hand for lack of long term experience? I don't -- so long as they don't talk shit about things they know nothing about, and as long as they are respectful in their disagreements.
You, on the other hand, have apparently no idea why SC/BW was so great for gamers and spectators, and you're belittling it and its fans. You are in fact piddling all over the sole reason SC2 exists in its current form, and over the people who - through ten years of love and labour - made it turn out this way, on the very site that has been the central pillar of this endeavour.
This helps your case... how?
SC1 was revolutionary for the time, but now it's outdated, and 90% of the things you're bitching about (reduced micro potential, et al) are actually improvements rather than problems.
Lack of micro potential, a lower skill cap and simplified game mechanics are actually improvements?
Every opinion you ever utter ever again will be forever tainted by this statement.
If you genuinely believe that a lack of micro control and spectator excitement makes a game better, then you go against the opinions of everyone who has ever loved RTS gaming as a spectator sport. If people can't get excited about what they see, it's not going to succeed.
Yeah, sure, Starcraft 1 was so terrible that you had to not only overcome your opponent, but the game itself to actually win. With Starcraft 2, you don't have to fight the game mechanics as much so you're free to focus on your opponent.
Jesus Christ.
People wanting old units/voices/music/micro/etc are too blinded by nostalgia to enjoy the greatest RTS to come out in the last 5 years at least, and it's time SC2 was judged on its own merits or at least against its peers, rather than against a game whose only leg up on SC2 is the same name and nostalgia. So get over it and move on if you want to post about SC2 or in the SC2 forums. Otherwise stick to BW and keep your shit out of my areas.
/endrant
The central point - that people should stop bogging down threads by going on about how SC/BW was so much better - I absolutely agree with, for the same reason I told these brain surgeons something similar. And while it still has a goodly way to go to live up to its predecessor, I also don't think SC2 is that bad.
You are a new boy in a house built by old men, telling old men to keep their shit out of your house.
Too bad your point was buried in filth until it lost all meaning.
You see. it's clearly Blizzard's intention to replace the current BW esport scene with SC2. Fail to notice the GSL? The grudge between Blizzard and KesPA? And how we may not be seeing either Jaedong or Flash getting their Golden badge because MBCGame refused to broadcast GSL? It's not even a competition like you said, it's a fucking elimination. BW to die, SC2 to rise, that is what's going on.
It's so obvious why people are comparing between the two games. Who would want a shitty game to replace the all time greatest RTS? If anything, criticism is good for SC2 because that's how it rises to the top (if it ever will).
Lol op before u post something like that please go look up the history of bw. Obviuosly people are going to compare sc2 with bw, it's the long awaited sequel of bw. Bw's the probably The greatest rts if not game of all time and it only makes sense to comparenit to sc2 for sc2 to improve. Im sure many of the tl veterans are going to continue to compare the two games so live with it
I actually thought this might be some form of evolved tdot, but judging by lack of OP response I fear it is not the case- which means he is actually sincere in his statement he is making.
It's called Starcraft"2" for a reason. It's 2nd best. ..
How could you not compare the two? That was the point right? Make a better game? But, this is the best Blizzard could do after having 12 years to play with? I personally feel a tad robbed and cheated (tho thankfully didn't spend any of my hard earned money!).
And the whole bull about 3d graphics is a scam in my eyes. 3D is great for FPShooters, but I see SC2 unit graphics as inferior to their simple but elegant sprite cousins. Ya the landscape and backdrops in SC2 look great, but the units themselves look like Warcraft commercials I see on TV hosted by Mr. T himself. "What's your game?"
Anywho, I'm a bit of a BWar fanatic lol (tho a polite and somewhat reserved one, so I'd like to believe.. my join date/post count speaks for itself) and I'm probably "blinded" by fanaticism and the fact that I bought 2SCBWar disks in 1998 at the ripe age of 32 just so I could play some Lan games with my then 12 year old nephew. Now that's nostalgia. Just wondering what would have happened if TL.net had remained a BWar only community? Starcraft would have for sure accelerated to the cult status it will become. SCBWar will be around longer than SC2 without doubt... at least on my own computer.
On September 25 2010 05:41 Chill wrote: I think a shallow comparison to BW is valid (ie. mechanics, UI, gameplay, etc.). Comparing the depth of strategy and tactics isn't too valid, yet. I think some people have been taking it to one extreme, and you took it pretty far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Yeah pretty much. I agree with your sentiments, OP, but you butchered the execution.
But yeah, far, far too many people keep trying to compare things to BW when it's not even a valid comparison. I can't stand the 'This is how this unit worked in bw' or 'this is how this strat worked in bw' arguments. It's not fucking BW!!!!!!
I agree comparisons between units and strategies are silly. SC2 is a different game. It is NOT broodwar.
However, the reason I am so adamant about comparing broodwar and sc2 in terms of quality is purely because I love broodwar, and if Blizzard insists upon trying to replace broodwar with sc2, then I want sc2 to be just as good. Which is, imo, not at all. Remember, all the nostolgic broodwar players constantly bitching in the sc2 threads are only doing so to HELP sc2.
we want a game to trump broodwar, and to find that game, we must compare everything to broodwar.
On September 25 2010 17:38 infinity2k9 wrote: How can you say SC1 sounds are 'sub-par'? Especially in comparison to SC2. Do you have ears?
The difference between the voice acting in sc1 and sc2 is like the difference between the acting in terminator 1 and terminator 3. Please don't get me started about the game-play itself....
I'm talking about sounds not voice acting. BW has excellent sound design to the point where you can tell exactly what's happening on screen with your eyes closed.
Pretend you introduce chess to a 5 year old. Because you have a $2000 marble chess set with figures shaped like bionic-lego-superawesome-Batman, he thinks it's tons of fun. Now pretend when he grows to about 12 he goes to his first tournament. But you're not allowed to use $2000 Batman sets there, everyone just has bland $30 tournament boards. He looks around and everyone is deep in calculation. He says, "this sucks," and leaves. Now pretend instead of chess, the $2000 board is SC2 and the tournament board is BW.
It's not a case of anyone not giving something enough of a chance (otherwise I would retort that you don't actually know much about BW). These are all video games; people play what they find fun.
EPT
