And I will help you understand me and some of the BW ''fanboys''.
I write this because of the recent post that Blind-RawR made.(check it out here if you want http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=199225) This is going to be a huge wall of text and I am going to put all my ranting in it and some hopefully helpfull knowledge to SC2 fans aswell. Everyday I browse TL, and everyday I see the same thing, I will quote myself from the aforementioned blog.
On March 09 2011 01:38 Kipsate wrote: These days their are so many uninformed posts from both sides. Because seriously, it is getting so annoying to see alot of threads end up like this. 1. random topic 2. Someone brings in a comparison of BW to SC2 3. SC2 people rant 4. BW people rant back 5. no discussion at all,just meaningless namecalling,baseless arguments and flaming 6. Topic derailed
Either that or
1. SCbw to be dropped, from whatever competition, or not included 2. SC2 guys:Bw is dead 3. SCBW guys: Bw never dies, it is so much better then sc2 4. Thread derailed, flaming ensues.
Now to you SC2 fans I will explain why I(I do not wish to represent others in any way, however I do know that some people find themselves with similiair opinions) why I get so defensive about Brood War, why I like it so much. And why in my opinion SC2 lacks in certain departments
IMPORTANT NOTE: This wall of text is obviously going to be biased, I like BW over SC2 Do NOT come here if you wish to say BW is dead or BW never dies or either rules.
My goal is to make you understand why I think BW is better in certain departments and to ask your on input why do you like Sc2. This will be written in more of a summary format as I have no energy nor time to write a multiple page essay about this.
History and player fanbase.
For the purpose of readability I will keep this short. However you need to know that the E-sport scene virtually did not exist till a small amount of time ago. The reason that Starcraft BW is so amazing for us includes the facts that it was one of the first games to truly introduce leagues, paid salaries, televised games and such. I have an emotional attachment to Starcraft BW because of this, reading articles like BW is dead is annoying because it was 1 of the first games to actually come on a grand scale with E-sports.
The years of Brood War also means that fanbases have devolped over the years, while SC2 competition is still young. The SCBW has more then a decade of history, I feel an attachment to each of the players from the teams. Incredible players such as Jaedong, Bisu(why yes he is pretty aswell), Stork, Flash and the likes of the old, Kingdom, Boxer, Oov, Nada, etc. These names save from Boxer, Nada and those who have transferred to SC2 may not be known that much. But they are known to me. Everytime you mention that BW is dieing, you mention that our favorite players, who I have grown to be a faithfull fan of too is fading away.
Note that the above mentioned have nothing to do with the actual gameplay, and this is not to reflect if anything is superior to another but it has to do with the defensive position that I and some Brood war fans take instantly whenever a mention of BW is dead comes to mind.
Macro mechanics:
People say that MBS and 12unit control groups should not matter when it comes to spectatorship, however it does. Why do you ask?Because managing 5 bases is incredibly hard, imagine having to make probes out of ~3 nexusses at the same time(with 1 click each). Then when they spawn you have to click each probe and tell them to start mining. Do we see it?No, however we do know that is being done. Losses can be attributed to fail macro and it differs the mediocre from the top players.
In Starcraft 2, Macroing is much easier, you have MBS ,automining and stuff. This makes the skill difference between mediocre players and good players much smaller. I am currently in Diamond league in SC2, and let me tell you I suck at the game. However it is so easy that anyone can do it, the easiest division on ICCup BW, the D is harder then anything I have ever played against in Starcraft 2. I got absolutely demolished by any competent player SOLELY on his mechanics when it comes to macro.
In short, the terrible UI of BroodWar in it days actually attributes to the skill gap difference between mediocre and good players in Brood war. There is no such thing in Starcraft 2, as with warpgate tech, MBS, etc it is much easier for anyone. Therefore the skill gap is much smaller.
Is this a good thing?This is open to interpretation, I will admit that I personally find SCBW mechanically too taxing alone , I can not play it at on a high level(I get crushed whenever I attempt ICCup. Bonwja's as we know it exist partially because of this. Oov was famed for his incredible Terran macro, he was known to totally change the game solely based upon his incredible impressive macro mechanics. These days in Starcraft 2 everyone is on that level. Therefore the chance of a SC2 Bonwja is reduced, is it good?maybe, personally I like Bonwja's. People that are untouchable, and when beaten by a player considered inferior it adds to the suspense, the amazingness. SC2 is still young, and therefore there won't be a incredible Bonwja for years, however with reasons stated above one can not rely on superior macro mechanic skill to do so.
Smartcasting
In SC2 we know that you have smartcasting, If you do not know what this includes. Basically if you have a group of 7 templars and click T(for storm) and storm somewhere only 1 templar will storm. In Brood war this is a different story, 7 templars and you press T on a location?7 storms will occur on that area. This is the reason why we are amazed EACH time if a Protoss storms brilliantly like Jangbi,(famed to destroy Nada's complete tankline with the use of a couple templars) Or when a person totally fails with a storm. Storms change battles, they change the tide, and they were not the only spells, Dark swarm, emp stasis. The BW flawed IU actually made it impressive for us as spectators to see something which we knew we could NEVER achieve.
It basically reflects what I think aswell. Everything was so overpowerd in Brood war, storms do a whopping 112 damage. This while Storm in Starcraft 2 does only 80 damage. With the added use of smartcasting, 112 damage storms in SC2 would Break the game so hard and I will explain why. The dreaded Ball effect You can´t tell, but those Roaches are actually screaming ´We are so screwed´´
How many times have you heard it? Balls make SC2 unfun to watch etc.
However to understand why you need to understand how the ball actually does this rather then be screamed at by BW fan people.
Simply put, balls mean clumping, clumping means reduced surface area. This affects melee units especially, zerglings have hard time engaging even a ball of stalkers in a good amount. Even if you surround say 12 stalkers with 50 zerglings, not all 50 zerglings can even attack, most of them will run around like idiots tryinig to find a hole to fit in to attack. Sure the zerglings will come out on top, however as you see melee units are much weaker in that aspect compared to Brood War. Because there was no clumping there(save from air clumping like muta's sairs etc) this made zerglings effective and neglected the massive advantage that range gain over melee partially.
Not only Zerglings suffer from this, ranged units actually do too. Units with superior range, such as the Collosus have a easy time shooting with their 9 range from the safety of their ball. However units such as the hydralisks or the roach can hardly reach the collosi, why?Because it is in a ball and is effectivly BLOCKED by stalkers, forcefields(more on this later) and units due to clumping.
This also means splash is that much more powerfull, and things such as Psi storm can not possible have 112 damage, they would not only change the tide of a battle but destroy the very fun of the game. It would be horridly overpowerd.
Now I will move on to the visuals of the ball. People always say SC2 has superior graphics, I am not 1 to deny this(hell noone sane can) but there is something different about a ball as opposed to ''loose units''. Seeing ~30-40 units shoved in a surface area so small that they only contain such a small amount of the battlefield is for me personally offputting. Why?Because seeing streams of units come from different angles is so much more exciting. Hell it does not have to be a angle for me, if they run alongside each other it is so much more fun to watch for me. If you have never watched a Protoss break a siege tank line in BW then you should. It is hordes of zealots/dragoons coming in from a WIDE SPACE, how does it work in SC2?They come in a ball.
Micro
Ah micro, the sweetest of the Starcraft gameplay, where a unit in the hands of a good player is that much more potent then in the hands of a average player. It is this more then anything which visually directly affects the spectatorship of both games. Remember when people were amazed at MarineKingPrime when he microed his marines around banelings?I too was excited, it was perhaps the first step in true SC micro as we BW fans know it. However after that I have watched countless games of SC2 and.....nothing else happens.
This outlines what I am missing in SC2 at this moment. I will tell you about the most basic and some of the most micro intensive units in SCBW
The excitement that Brood war brings has alot to do with flawed AI and I will tell you why. I will tell you about the interesting units that Brood war has opposed to Starcraft 2.
The Reaver, Vulture and Scourge.
Reavers are very interesting units this, has to do with the fact that the scarab that it shoots is retarded. If you have ever watched BW you know that a scarab can dud alot of the times, however It can also cause HUGE damage to the opponent(read, ~8 workers dead in 1 shot). This adds to alot of suspense, will the Reaver kill or not?
Now we come to the Reaver equivalent that Protoss has gained, the Collosi
The Collosi is are impressive units to see (bzzzzzzzzzt), it is visually impressive but it is practically a boring unit, it attacks and that is about it. You can not micro anything with it.
Another unit which brings interest to the game is the Vulture, as you might know a vulture has spider mines. These bad boys are horridly overpowerd when used correctly, as the have a incredibly high splash damage and vultures come with them when upgraded, 3 of them to be exact. But they can turn the tide of a game incredibly fast, Normally vultures can not destroy dragoons at all. They do 25% damage against dragoons, a pitifull amount. However with proper micro and mine placement, a group of vultures can take out the unit it supposedly is countered by. And to counter that, a group of well controlled dragoons can take out each of the dangerous mines placed around them.
This clip says it all, it is micro from both sides and the one who does it best comes out on top, it is how it should be. The better player should win based upon his unit control, not his unit control alone though but amazing things can happen with vultures and alot of different units in the hands of good players.
Another example is the unit we know as the Scourge, these bastards are flying suicide units, like Banelings. And they could be avoided with micro or do tremendous damage with proper micro. I have said before that MKP splitting was something which resembled Brood war, now check the clip below
This was amazing to see, this shuttle juke. What made it more amazing is what he saved, he saved a shuttle with 2 high templars, some of the most costly units in the Protoss arsenal, Because it is so hard to macro in Starcraft 1, the units are much less likely to be replaced and need to be saved at all costs. The zerg their scourges are the buggers which are amazing to watch for both fails and success.
Supernovamaniac has elaborated a bit more about how amazing this and I will put his quote here if you want to read up on it as he explains it quite well. + Show Spoiler +
On March 09 2011 09:11 supernovamaniac wrote: With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
Now imagine for a second that we live in a dream world where scourges have entered SC2 through a incredibly weird dimension. The question is as a Protoss, when scourges fly near my deathball, can I micro my Collosi away from the Scourges while simutaniously targeting the scourges(and not the army that comes with it) to save my collosi. After which I proceed to destroy the Zerg army based upon my superior micro control? We can only hope.
Conclusion
I will when I have the time and energy perhaps add some more stuff which makes it more exciting in spectatorship for me. However I hope you understand partially know why I and many others think BW is such a more exciting game, It was perhaps a miracle, it was most likely unintended to be so big as it is today. The MANY flawed mechanics in AI and UI actually attribute to the spectatorship. Is it better then Sc2?For me it is, however is it better designed?That is not the same but I am of the opinion that SC2 is obviously better designed when it comes to AI and UI. Spectatorship for me however suffers due to this.
Now I would like to ask the Starcraft 2 fans who want to talk to me and have a discussion about it. I have a question, It has been bothering me for quite some time and I have yet to find an answer.
OUTSIDE of the fact that SC2 is leading us to an international E-sport(Noone denies that SC2 is internationally BY FAR more impressive in terms of widespread recocgnition).
Why do you like SC2?What makes it so impressive that you want to watch it?What makes you get up at akward Korean times to watch the GSL?What makes you thrilled when watching the games?What makes it exciting?
Help me understand this and hopefully I have made you a little more knowledgable as to why I and some of the ''BW fanboys'' are so attached to the game and why we get so defensive each time, and why we think BW is better.
Note that the goal of this is to have your input, I do not like to just be flamed by SC2 fan people or SC BW fan likewise.
TDLR: There is noone, If you want to understand some of the BW mentality, read it .......Read it all!
Edit: I just noticed I didn't explain the forcefields, I will when I have more time and energy, off to bed now.
Edit 2: Supernovamanic's explenation of Kal's scourge dodge added.
For me, I agree with everything you said only I want to add something more. Comebacks are my favorite part of a good BW and they happen almost every game. Right when a player looks overpowered(read, that first big marine+medic push in TVZ) some awesome unit will come and manage to keep the other player going. When playing or watching, I feel like either player can come back from almost any situation. I recently saw in Sayle's cast of a game between Semih and (darling?), Semih loses almost everything in a 2 fact push. He makes one reaver, gets 30 kills and ends up winning the game. Pure spectator orgasm, even in a nonpro game. Exemplary Games + Show Spoiler +
Ultimately it just comes down to a difference of opinion. Without personally arguing every little point, many SC2 fans imply disagree with a lot of the points you make. There's nothing more to really say about it, a lot of the hardcore BW vs SC2 fanboys (on both sides) speak from a very close-minded, absolutist position of one "better" than the other. That's just not the case.
I've always been a fan of SC/BW and played some thousands of b.net games, but never really followed the pro scene, and stopped playing the game around the time War3 came out. Never really looked back, and only came back to the franchise with the SC2 beta. So I guess I'm one of those "SC2 people", but kinda with a SC/BW background. I can understand and appreciate why it's awesome what Flash or JD are doing, but I'd rather watch SC2.
Why? Had to think about that question for a while.
For starters, because I play SC2 myself. I guess that makes relating to what happens in a stream or VoD a bit easier. Seeing MKP micro against banelings and failing at trying to do it myself makes me appreciate what he's doing so much more. I guess the same applies to SC/BW but then again it's literally been half a decade since I last played it.
Then there's the graphics, I won't lie. SC/BW is ugly. SC2 is shiny. I like looking at fullscreen HQ shiny graphics more than the pixel nightmare that SC/BW is these days. Graphics were never really an issue for me but there's a certain treshold that separates a golden oldie from an antique and with shifting technologies, BW has crossed that treshold for me.
Hm ... general gameplay. SC/BW is clunky. Units move weirdly. I'm kinda used to a more "natural" flow of things happening in games these days, and not only in RTS. Technology advances, not only graphics, but also AI, pathfinding etc. and SC/BW really shows its age in that regard.
Last point probably is the casting. As said before, I never really followed the pro scene, but whenever I did watch a game it was casted by those crazy, screaming korean commentators that made it hilarious to watch a single game but tiring to watch a whole series. With SC2, there are so many commentators for different skill levels and tastes and so many of them are really professional at what they're doing that I have no trouble finding some entertaining games to watch. I realize there were awesome english casters in SC/BW as well, Artosis/Tasteless/Day9 etc. came from somewhere, but watching SC2 is a much more accessable thing than watching SC/BW ever was for me.
So ... yeah, that's it basically. That's why I'd rather watch SC2 than SC/BW.
Well, as of now, SC2 mechanics are not even remotely as well figured out as BW. So the highest level SC2 is being played at (presumably GSL) is not as far from the level of the average viewer is playing as it was the case in BW. So it's much easier to relate to the situations in GSL matches, but it's still awesome if someone pulls out a new trick or something like that. GSL matches hugely influence the play you see on the ladder and thus the average viewer.
I have watched BW for a long time and I agree that it is more impressive if someone pulls an amazing stunt while playing this incredibly hard game. But those pros can only pull that off because they have trained for soooo long. It's all about practice, if you have watched the Nada vs July match in GSL recently, this becomes very obvious. Both players played nowhere near perfect, huge amounts of mistakes were made on both sides. Even though both are amongst the most accomplished BW players of all time.
As soon as players get as much SC2 practice as BW players have, there will be many many more cool micro moves. But more importantly, you missed the drama outside the game, which is still there in SC2. I usually watch SC2 mainly because I root for a specific player (yay foreigners actually having a chance!) or because some kind of grudge is going on. This is what makes it so awesome. Plus we finally have really good english speaking live casters who tend to make a game much more exciting and provide in-depth information about the game, which comes back to my first point - you can relate much better to the plays being pulled off, live.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not anti-SCII by any means, but it really seems like the magic of those "How the hell can he DO that?!" moments are gone in BW's antecedent — in fact, it seems the moments themselves are absent. Brood War, on the other hand, was filled with those events: Dropship / Scourge micro, incredible Storms, stacked Mutalisk harassment, a lone Dragoon singlehandedly winning the game with 33 kills (thx to shield battery), Marines dancing around Lurkers without taking damage... hell, even the sight of what seems like hundreds of units streaming out of a player's base is amazing to watch. Because Brood War's skill cap is so ridiculously high, we, as spectators, know that what they're watching is so stupidly difficult that a player pulling it off with ease gives us that rush of "Holy shit!"
That doesn't seem to happen in StarCraft II, at least not on the same scale. Sure, there are exciting moments that can and do occur, such as Archon toilets, Baneling drops, Hellions roasting entire mineral lines, and clutch Transfuse micro, to name a few. However, as a result of this new game being balanced around all players, it's hard for me as the audience to go, "Wow, I could never do that! That's amazing!"; the more prevalent thought is something along the lines of, "Oh, look, that ball of Marines just killed 100 Zerglings. Whoopee."
The enthusiasm is gone, and with lack of enthusiasm comes lack of interest. If things continue on their present course, my prediction is that StarCraft II will eventually become boring to me, and I will move back to Brood War, which has never bored me.
I didn't read your whole post, but as someone who loves bw and prefers it over SC2 I'm pretty sure I agree with most of it. However, I also watch SC2 and stay up late to watch the GSL. It's true that no aspect of SC2, gameplay wise, is better or even equal to bw yet. Nonetheless, as a spectator sport SC2 has improved by leaps and bounds over the marine-scv all ins we saw in GSL2.
One of the main draws of SC2 is potential. BW is pretty much played out strategically. The only new playstyle we've seen employed successfully recently is the +1 speedlot/sair in PvZ. Great and Zero's much vaunted hivetech zvz flopped except for 1 game. We get some funkiness here and there like Kal's proxy gateway into disruption web that he used against ggaemo, but overall bw progamers are simply using highly refined versions of strategies that have been around for years.
I and many other TLers weren't around to see boxer, nada, oov, savior, july, etc when they were in their prime and only get to see their brilliance through VODs. When I first got into bw, I loved reading about all the revolutions that took place in the game ie. july's muta stacking, the bisu build etc. However, this simply cannot match the excitement of witnessing history being made live. In SC2, I've seen with my own eyes game altering tactics and strategies as they happened. Units and tactics that allow a player to roflstomp the competition one month are being rendered completely irrelevent then next. This is why we have still yet to have a repeat GSL champion, although MC is the heavy favorite for this month. This volatility brings excitement in a way that the bw scene no longer can.
I fully understand that BW fans loves BW cause they've been following the game for 10 years, knows the game inside out and are fans of the players. For the same reason I understand why they dont enjoy SC2 cause it means nothing to them.
I personally think that BW is a great game and in many ways more polished then SC2 is at this point but I dont enjoy watching it because 1. I dont know the players and 2. I dont understand the game. I mean I know what it's about but I would never be able to tell who is ahead by looking at the game or if its good or bad to have defilers at the 12 minute mark.
So naturaly I like SC2 cause it's the game I know and play and I've become to like and cheer for some of the players. BW fans feels the same way of course, probally even stronger feelings about their game cause they've been doing it for a decade.
I also find any argueing about who is right and who is wrong and why what is better to watch or play to be total bullshit, am I'm sorry to say it like this but so is your blog. There is nothing to argue about, BW and SC2 are 2 different games with different fan groups, and thats about it. Even if BW is a better, more interesting, more balanced, more polished, more historical, more whatever game, there is no way I would enjoy watching it because it means nothing to me and I fully understand BW fans feel the same way about SC2. What I dont understand is why ppl always feel like argueing about it.
On March 09 2011 08:51 Archvil3 wrote: I fully understand that BW fans loves BW cause they've been following the game for 10 years, knows the game inside out and are fans of the players.
He gives other reasons in the OP and I, for one started the game AFTER SC2 came out so there are definitely other reasons.
So far, the posts have been really good. Keep them coming! Also one of the things why people might like SC2 better is because it's a new game. Just like BW you can create your own builds, experiment, you have new units to use and different combinations for them. The meta-game can always change because it's still so new!
@101TFP : Don't think that SC2 players aren't training as hard as BW players. They have established team houses and practice almost all day long, as far as I know. Though its relatively new, they work as hard. At the moment, it seems like the builds are getting settled down. Unlike a revolution kicks in (Bisu), I don't see a major change until a major patch kicks in.
Note before I start: This is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine. However, if you choose to bash it, you better have good reasons.
I'm not going to talk about the games itself; its basically people who started with something first is used to it rather than the other system. Even IdrA and Jinro said that BW is better, but that's because they played BW beforehand.
I'm going to talk from the spectator's aspect on both BroodWar and Starcraft 2 (And steal some words from OGN's observer).
Where to begin... let's start off with BroodWar. BroodWar's observing system was never implemented by Blizzard. If you have played few games with your friends, you realize that you need a specific map for obs on UMS in order to have obs in game. The classic way (pick terran, lift, vision) is still used.
These two methods do not give any information on the two players in the game (1v1 lets say) except their visions. You do not see their mineral count nor gas, food, what's coming out from production buildings, or even upgrades. All you see is what you would see if you did not click on any building/unit during a replay. (Now, this section is based on the Proleague system. For Ongamenet Starleague and (previous) OGN held WCG events, they have their own system that showed the mineral, gas, and food).
Blizzard realized that StarCraft 2 needs an obs system, so they implemented. Unlike BW, it gives away tons of information: Army Value, Resource, Production, Upgrades, APM etc. They can even go into first person vision easily, unlike in BW where the television studio actually had to change the main camera from the observer's monitor to player's.
So many say that StarCraft 2 system is better since it has more info.
I actually beg to differ.
Have you seen those BroodWar matches that kept you on the edge of the seat? For example, ZvZ situation. Player A has 8 lings that are running towards Player B's base. Player B, however, has only 4 lings. B has 3 unused larvae, and those 3 morph at the same time. You wait in anxiety to see if those 3 larvae turn into drones or zerglings. If zerglings come out, Player B can successfully block the attack. However, if the drones come out, Player B will have a severe disadvantage. You wait on the edge of the seat to see what pops out.
However, in StarCraft 2, you know what the units are going to be even before they pop out. As soon as player hits the units, you know what's going to come out of the egg.
My point here? Extra information is actually ruining the observing aspect of StarCraft 2.
If the game was in StarCraft 2, I will know that Player B would've survived/died to the attack immediately, thus taking out the excitement/anxiety value of the match. In fact, when two armies battle in SC2, you can see the army value. Though this is only a rough estimate (and composition matters more than just the army value), the observers/spectators can guess that one player is going to win over the other player in the battle. If you cruise through the resources, you can predict which player is going to win based on the information.
However, in BroodWar, you don't have all these extra info. When Protoss's nexus is destroyed, the spectators/observers never know if the P player left 400 minerals for another nexus (399 incident anyone?). Though they use FPview to confirm how much minerals that it has few seconds later, the spectators are trying to figure out if the P player can make another nexus.
TBH, BW has more exciting moments because of the lack of information. With less information given to the spectators, the spectators have to guess what's going on, and hope that the player made the right decision. Sure, these moments will last for only few seconds, but that's what makes BW interesting.
On March 09 2011 08:51 Archvil3 wrote: I fully understand that BW fans loves BW cause they've been following the game for 10 years, knows the game inside out and are fans of the players.
He gives other reasons in the OP and I, for one started the game AFTER SC2 came out so there are definitely other reasons.
He did and I did also call them bullshit(sorry for the language, will keep it down from now) cause what it comes down to is personal preferences and the game and players that you love. As much as I think BW is a more polished game(SC2 will be some day but it takes quite some time you know), more balanced, requires more skill from the players and all the other good points he argues makes BW a better game to watch, it still means nothing to me cause I never watched BW, I hardly know the players, although I'm getting familiar with a few names and watched the latest OSL and MSL finals. But I just dont care about it. And I fully understand why BW players dont feel like watching SC2 as well.
Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
I actually partly feel like makes starcraft seem less "micro oriented" or "dynamic" is actually the collusus. The key unit in all 3 matchups, it is so generic. Just a giant machine that shoots lasers. You hardly micro it except to keep it away from damage. I feel like if this was made more "complex" than the matchup would become more evolved as a whole.
I am a BW fan. I was always wondering what is so special and interesting about sc2 that so many people follow it. Thanks to this thread and some answers, I finally realized that I missed some facts that are now obvious to me:
But more importantly, you missed the drama outside the game, which is still there in SC2. I usually watch SC2 mainly because I root for a specific player (yay foreigners actually having a chance!) or because some kind of grudge is going on. This is what makes it so awesome. Plus we finally have really good english speaking live casters who tend to make a game much more exciting and provide in-depth information about the game, which comes back to my first point - you can relate much better to the plays being pulled off, live.
When I first got into bw, I loved reading about all the revolutions that took place in the game ie. july's muta stacking, the bisu build etc. However, this simply cannot match the excitement of witnessing history being made live. In SC2, I've seen with my own eyes game altering tactics and strategies as they happened. Units and tactics that allow a player to roflstomp the competition one month are being rendered completely irrelevent then next. This is why we have still yet to have a repeat GSL champion, although MC is the heavy favorite for this month. This volatility brings excitement in a way that the bw scene no longer can.
Some people appreciate numbers of available English casters. I, sincerely haven't found an English sc2 caster who does not get on my nerve but that is probably because I didn't look for properly. I enjoy Korean commentating although I understand just 2 words.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
This is just asking for a flamewar. I can understand the point of the post- although I do not think it wise to trash sc2. I would just stick with the positives of BW. Even though its basically the same thing, it will help a lot with my first statement.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And the fact that he basically had a half second window to move the shuttle, which he couldn't have gotten unless he was that good or he was babysitting his shuttle, and nobody progamer babysits anything.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
not only that, he had to find the exact right moment to trick the AI. a second earlier would let the scourge correct their path in time, and a second later would have been too late.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
not only that, he had to find the exact right moment to trick the AI. a second earlier would let the scourge correct their path in time, and a second later would have been too late.
great post! well put.
Yea I was assuming that the original writer knew about this. Sorry for missing the AI/timing =P
I was a macro player in bw and now in sc2 i am as well--the ball has affected macro players a lot, imo, because in bw i would macro up a sick army and throw it at someone AND micro it. In sc2, i just macro good and a-move, maybe some ff's and storms thats it. It really makes macro style less fun and almost makes me feel like i should be 4gating in pvp or blink stalker rushing every game if i want that "micro rush" i felt so much in BW. I've switched to sc2 purely because i think BW will die out soon. And there's no way i can get past my C on iccup in that short time (4-5 years?) and make money of bw xD
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
not only that, he had to find the exact right moment to trick the AI. a second earlier would let the scourge correct their path in time, and a second later would have been too late.
great post! well put.
not only THAT but he also had to macro like a pro.
sc2 is just going to be a lot different then bw beacuse I think its going to not attract at all the same people. I think regular smoes can see sc2 and enjoy it beacuse of all the flashy flashy while bw was a lot better for those people in the know about bw.
I'll be honest, I only skimmed it. I'm pretty sure I can extrapolate though.
Here's the thing, there is not always understanding to be gained. It's not like people who enjoy SC2 more know something you don't, and once you figure that thing out, you'll magically start liking it.
By way of analogy, I don't like brocoli. Please, broccoli eaters, help me understand. Why do you like it? Is it the taste? The texture?
Like Hot Bid said, it's a matter of opinion. Yes, there is such thing as acquired taste. But if you don't like it now, there's no reason you ever should. Making an effort to be open-minded is great of course, but in the end, there's no guarantee that you'll ever "get it", because "getting it" is completely subjective. Some people in this thread have given some pretty good reasons why they like it, but who's to say that will even remotely apply to you?
So really, I recommend that you just keep playing/watching BW if that's what you like better. Maybe take a stab at SC2 every once and a while just to see if anything's changed. If not, fine. There's no reason to go so far out of your way to try to like a game if you're just not feeling it.
I can appreciate Broodwar's many qualities. It is an incredible game with great depth, skill and balance. However, I think a lot of what makes it so good is a huge fluke. Many cool micro tricks are actually bugs (muta stacking, vulture moving shot etc.), Blizzard got incredibly lucky with balance right from the start (only small tweaks were necessary over BW's 13 years lifetime) and what may be called a high mechanical skill ceiling is just an incredibly antiquated, cumbersome UI.
SC2, on the other hand, is a good game by design. The biggest improvement by far, to me, is the interface. I enjoy playing SC2 over BW because I can actually concentrate on battling my opponent, not the UI. To balance out the new, easier controls, new content and mechanics were added. SC2 offers many more options than its predecessor, it is more complex. You have more stuff to do, but things are easier to achieve mechanically. It may be true that this reduces the difference between a good and a great player. Then again, SC2 is a young game and skill will develop much more. Just compare a BW game from 2001 to a modern one to see the difference. Koreans are already pulling ahead. With age, skill and history will grow automatically.
On March 09 2011 09:26 Scorch wrote: I can appreciate Broodwar's many qualities. It is an incredible game with great depth, skill and balance. However, I think a lot of what makes it so good is a huge fluke. Many cool micro tricks are actually bugs (muta stacking, vulture moving shot etc.), Blizzard got incredibly lucky with balance right from the start (only small tweaks were necessary over BW's 13 years lifetime) and what may be called a high mechanical skill ceiling is just an incredibly antiquated, cumbersome UI.
SC2, on the other hand, is a good game by design. The biggest improvement by far, to me, is the interface. I enjoy playing SC2 over BW because I can actually concentrate on battling my opponent, not the UI. To balance out the new, easier controls, new content and mechanics were added. SC2 offers many more options than its predecessor, it is more complex. You have more stuff to do, but things are easier to achieve mechanically. It may be true that this reduces the difference between a good and a great player. Then again, SC2 is a young game and skill will develop much more. Just compare a BW game from 2001 to a modern one to see the difference. Koreans are already pulling ahead. With age, skill and history will grow automatically.
I hope Koreans won't be as dominate as they where in bw I don't think that would go very well for sc2 in america to have a bunch of guys who doesn't speak the language.
Oh man, I'm definitely a BW fan, but I gotta admit, SCII has its moments too. That one Jinro vs Idra game where Jinro did that amazing split vs banelings? Reminded me of the OoV split man!
I agree with your post, it makes a lot of sense. You have to understand that this happens with every game that comes out.
On shoryuken.com people are having a very similar discussion right now about Marvel vs Capcom 3 vs mvc2. Mvc2 is 10 years old and came out on the dreamcast. Because of its shitty UI, it was a much harder game to play, combos took time to perfect and understand, and the game was much different. Hardcore MvC2 fans hate MvC3 because its so easy.
When Super Smash Bros Brawl came out, people had the same discussion. SSBM is so much deeper, it took me months to get my tech skill to a level where i could barely hold my own in tournaments, and in brawl, if i pick a good character i could place fairly high because the game was much easier. I would also get beaten by shitty metaknights because metaknight is so good. The melee tournament scene is made of the most hardcore people, but it is still growing and tournaments are becoming bigger. However, tournaments like MLG took out melee in favor for brawl the first year it came out, because it is newer and more accessible, more people play it and understand it. When i play melee once or twice a month with a friend, it takes me 2-3 matches to get my tech skill back, because it requires that kind of constant play to stay good at it.
I started out playing melee competitively, and i will remain a diehard melee fan for the rest of my gaming life, much in the same way you will love BW. However, i never played BW, so i dont understand why it is so amazing in the same way you do. Similarily, most of the SC2 players never played broodwar at ICCUP level, so they like SC2 better because its a game they know.
The hardcore scene will remain hardcore for eternity. Even games like pacman and donkey kong have a hardcore scene, you just dont see those tournaments because the scene is so small. SC2 is more popular, so it naturally overtakes BW in terms of availability.
I don't really have much to say as I haven't read the whole post and am off to bed soon but I am going to refute the the usual point about how hard D ICCup is. A huge chunk of the playerbase that is in the lower SC2 divisions are there because they are inactive or casual players, and a lot of these players may have just got SC2 because they jumped on the hype train or w/e, they have no interest in a game that is 10 years old so you aren't going to find this huge buffer on ICCup, the majority of people who play on ICCup have been doing so for a while and have significant experience. Someone has to be on the bottom of the rankings so there will be players in D who supposedly have a super easy time reaching diamond+ in sc2
The only thing I can't get over is this argument of "the game is too easy." Sure the mechanics are easier with MBS and automining but that's not something that is instantly going to make you pro. Yes, a lot of players are in diamond and some suck and a lot of people make the argument of "I would be so low ranked in Iccup but I'm diamond in SC2." The distribution in Iccup wasn't a forced 2%/18%/20%/20%/20% of players so it really can't be compared to the current system. Besides, diamond players should be shooting to get into masters. Masters players should shoot for top 200. Top 200 should be trying to win tournaments and turning pro.
If the game is so easy, why don't we see people like MC getting constantly beat by scrubs? Why are the good players constantly getting far in tournaments? I think a lot of players that hate SC2 are the ones who don't feel special anymore because they were the very few that achieved B rank in Iccup. Now they're just lumped into a diamond league with tons of players. If the percentages were changed into a pyramid system, I think there would be a lot less complaining.
PS: I actually watch more BW than SC2, I just want to argue the fact that many people think the game is too easy but they're not at the highest level of the game yet.
While everyone's answer is going to be different and there is no right answer, I can tell you why I prefer watching SC2 over BW.
In short: I can relate more to what's happening in a game of SC2, because I play it myself. While no doubt BW players pull off amazing things, I just don't have the level of understanding of the game to see how great it really is. I haven't played SC1 seriously for a long time, I've tried and I don't find it a relaxing, enjoyable experience anymore. I loved it when it came out, and I played the hell out of it for years, but it's not an enjoyable experience anymore. This is not me bashing the original, it's just that over the years I think I am expecting more of games, both in ease of use and when it comes to graphics.
I'm sure I could get into the SCBW scene if I still played myself, but not playing myself I lack the basic understanding neccesary to see the skill involved. I watched an old boxer vid a few weeks back and I didn't see the difference between a player microing marines and SCV's and the AI stuttering around.
Playing SC2 myself gives me a 'baseline' to compare what someone else is doing and how hard it is to pull off. Plus, I like the fact that SC2 seems to be moving at a rather fast pace strategy wise, where as more of the game gets 'explored' other options seem to open up.
(This is also the reason I don't enjoy sports with horses. Having never actually ridden a horse myself, I have no idea if what those people are doing is actually hard. To me it's just another horse jumping.)
Wow, the average length of posts in this thread is ridiculously long O_O
So, I will just make a short point. I think one of the biggest problems on both sides is that the SC2 players never played BW to a decent standard and vice versa. In the end, I don't think it's really fair to judge one game or another without first having immersed yourself in it in terms of playing to a fairly high level, watching a lot of professional matches, and above all TRYING to enjoy yourself the whole time. This is the reason that I regularly ladder and watch SC2 despite being a BW fan. I want to understand both sides.
I like SC2 because I play SC2 and understand the game better than BW. I come from a war3 backround and only played the campaign for SC1.
I have watched some BW streams here and there, and I will say the games are a lot closer which makes it more exciting than SC2, which can often have 1-sided games.
But I think that has everything to do with the best players playing BW and BW being "figured out" while SC2 is not. SC2 is still evolving.
Are games from the first 1-2 years of BW as exciting as they are today? From what I can tell, at least, nobody has any nostalgia for the pre-Boxer era of BW.
So basically I think it's pointless to compare BW and SC2 because SC2 is still changing and will look very different over the next few years.
Ultimately, it just depends on what game you play. I don't think I could get my friends who have never played SC2 to get into watching the GSL.
Only if SC2 was a complete remake of BW, with updated graphics, the exact same units, the exact same pathing, the exact same UI limits (selecting 12 units max, etc) would there not be any sort of SC2 vs BW debate.
Should anything be different between the two games, haters will hate. It doesn't matter what the differences are, good or bad, it's not exactly like the original, and the fanbase will go crazy as a result. This has happened in countless games, some were justified, SC2 isn't one of those justified cases.
Say what you want, but I DON'T want dragoon pathing, I DON'T want retard scarabs, and I DON'T to be limited to 12 units at a time. These aren't things that made BW great, they're detrimental if anything. It limits the player base and makes the "BW greats" more a collection of people with the natural ability to spam through this bullshit. You can see that today with Flash, nothing you haven't seen before, just perfect mechanics.
Everyone should watch the Bisu vs Flash video. Why isn't the game more designed like THAT anymore. It's nothing like it. Even marine splits and the like are not particularly impressive anymore because any good player can do that while babysitting the units, which you have time to do now.
By the way i saw someone mention a common mistake people make; Muta stacking is not a bug. Every unit in the game acts the same way, it's just how the magic box works so you can keep in formation if all units selected are near each other. Of course Blizzard never intended for it to be used like that for Mutas/wraith micro but it's not a bug, just how the engine works. Every unit will attempt to stack when theres one unit in the group thats out of the box.
Also Scorch, you say SC2 is more complex.. how so? Strategically i think it's infact less complex. I have no idea how you figure theres more options, when you compare when they took out with what they put in. Plus builds relying 100% on mechanics like 2hatch muta, 2port wraith, sair/reaver, they have no comparison in SC2. Let's just compare one matchup for an example, TvZ. In BW, every unit can be possibly used to effectively. There's endless build orders taking into account solely the early game. How does SC2 add more options in this matchup, cause personally i don't see it at all. You say about BW 12 years ago, but why compare it to then? That's 12 years of RTS knowledge added onto SC2 players; A lot of SC2 strategical ideas are simply re-inventions of old BW strategies, you can't compare it to 12 years ago. We're not starting from nothing again.
Ironically i believe the easier mechanics will, especially in the long run, create less viable strategies at the high level; simply because players cannot simply rely on it to overcome an economic disadvantage. In the mirror matchups we've seen it happen to PvP, now how long until people refine the best ZvZ and TvT builds which rely on you having x amount of units in x time. The same thing can happen in the normal matchups too unless they manage to get the balance right. The Zerg matchups are showing signs of being limited to reaction based play thats for sure.
As an SC2 player, I'm approaching this from a bit of a different perspective from a lot of the people around here because my RTS background isn't in Blizz's games, but rather from Total Annihilation and then Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance.
The first few points you make about the skill required to macro/cast without smartcast/get your dragoons to walk down a ramp/etc all tie back to the #1 thing I dislike about Brood War: namely, that for nearly 100% of the user base (basically everyone who isn't Bisu/Flash/Jaedong/Stork), the game is a contest to see who is better at manipulating a crappy interface. And, for me, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting game- it's about as interesting as a contest to see who is best at doing productive work in CDE/Motif. I doubt many people would think that using CDE is an entertaining experience, but for the vast majority of players, Brood War is just CDE with blood, explosions, and cool sound effects.
As for the "SC2 deathball", you're right that it's a major issue with the game. If, after the expansions come out, the "deathball" is the optimum strategy, I doubt SC2 will have a long life as a competitive game. But, the solution to the problem isn't to give units retarded pathfinding- otherwise, whoever manages to get their units to act most like a deathball wins, and we're still left with the same dull strategy but with a layer of "do productive work in CDE" on top of it. Both of the RTSs I played prior to SC2- Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance- made it extremely easy to create a "deathball"... if you wanted to. Yet, it was never a problem, because the nature of those games meant that it was nearly always better to split your army up to raid and harass all across the map (expansions were all over the map, each being a much smaller investment than in SC/SC2, meaning that players were encouraged to expand all over the place, even to places they couldn't really defend well, thus meaning that there were generally multiple places to attack where you could do good damage with a small army). Fixing the mechanics that make the deathball desirable is the solution to the deathball; not gimping the unit AI.
On March 09 2011 11:03 Offhand wrote: You can see that today with Flash, nothing you haven't seen before, just perfect mechanics.
Flash has been one of the main innovators and trend setters of BW for the past three years. Hardly something you've seen before with perfect mechanics.
to be honest, the reason I like SC2 is because its what introduced me to e-sports. I also came in when SC2 started which makes me feel like I am growing with the game and am able to watch it evolve.
For those of you who have been watching brood war and playing it for years now I think you can understand my position as well. You grow with the game, you see the changes, you understand the changes in the games and the shifts in the strategy and metagame and know who the people who the players are.
For someone like me who has been growing as an individual and player with SC2 and with the exploding NA e-sports scene I have a far greater personal investment in this game than BW. I have seen some vods of BW games and I agree that some of the micro is fantastic in it and I enjoy watching it. But i will never have a chance to be even remotely decent at that game so I will continue to devote my pay time to the game I have been playing since July, that being SC2.
Am I a fanboy of SC2? sure, but first and foremost I am a fan of StarCraft as a franchise. The two games are different thanks to technological leaps between 1998 and 2010. Will SC2 grow and change sure it will. And I for one am hoping it grows better and better with time.
I wasn't around in the early early days of SC1:Vanilla and BW but I am sure all the amazing stuff you see with micro and unit control didn't happen from day 1. Sure mechanics aren't as big an issue right now but with time who knows how SC2 will evolve and change.
My only hope is that it becomes as epic as BW was and continues to be. I want to grow with the esport that is SC2 and watch it change as the years go by. I for one want to say i was here when it started, a benefit some of you BW vets have but one I definitely don't.
That's why I like SC2, I enjoy BW definitely but I dont have the knowledge or understanding to really say that I love it as much as I SC2. Watching July and Nada in the GSL gave me a taste of that BW feeling with a strong back and forth game and push and pull in some of the games the two guys played. And, again, its the growth of SC2 to become great that has me excited.
Everything I write below is from the perspective of a medium/high level BW player (high C+ in recent seasons of iCCup) and an avid follower of the BW pro scene. Now, I an atypical BW fanboy because I hope SC2 succeeds, because realistically, there is not going to be a revival in the BroodWar community, and when BW has run its course, I want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. I hope this game can be SC2, but I doubt it will happen unless the upcoming expansions offer drastic changes to SC2's core mechanics.
Now, let's look at what made BW successful. BroodWar was able to capture an entire generation shortly after it's release. Just look at the audience size for this 2001 tournament: + Show Spoiler +
All this was achieved without any corporations actively pushing BroodWar as an esport. Now, after the initial hype for SC2 has passed, one has to wonder why live audiences for the games are dwindling, even with the efforts of many corporations such as Blizzard and GOMTV doing everything they can to promote SC2.
Now, one has to wonder, why did BroodWar achieve so much success in a relatively short amount of time while SC2 cannot achieve the same success even with an established scene set up, many prominent personalities playing it, and the sponsorship of many large companies.
The answer is simple, objectively, SC2 is just not that fun to watch.
I will not make any comments to the removal of MBS, automine, or even smart casting, as although I would prefer they not be part of the game, I can accept that we live in 2011 and a game without those features would just not be popular. What I believe to be the major in SC2 is the lack of engagement micro. No one can deny that the most entertaining aspect from a spectator's point of view is the engagement micro (hell, just listen to the Korean fangirls scream at the top of their lungs) + Show Spoiler +
In BroodWar, the spectator can never know how a battle will turn out unless one side absolutely overpowers the other (sometimes even this isn't the case, just ask the Dragoon who got 30 something kills). This is because how the two forces engage is pivotal as well as where they engage (high ground advantage yesssss). However, in SC2, anyone with basic RTS knowledge (or basic geometry skills - just look at which ball is bigger) can predict the outcome of a battle generally pretty accurately, because the players do not have a large role in how they can do the most damage to their opponent and minimize their losses because there is no engagement micro.
Now, when you have repetitive ball vs ball fights, along with a stale map pool and over-effective all in builds, it is natural to understand why Koreans are not so quick to pick up SC2.
The first few points you make about the skill required to macro/cast without smartcast/get your dragoons to walk down a ramp/etc all tie back to the #1 thing I dislike about Brood War: namely, that for nearly 100% of the user base (basically everyone who isn't Bisu/Flash/Jaedong/Stork), the game is a contest to see who is better at manipulating a crappy interface. And, for me, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting game- it's about as interesting as a contest to see who is best at doing productive work in CDE/Motif. I doubt many people would think that using CDE is an entertaining experience, but for the vast majority of players, Brood War is just CDE with blood, explosions, and cool sound effects.
Yet aren't all RTS games, boiled down to a minimalist core, all about the ability for a player to make the correct mouseclicks and tap the correct keys at the right time?
The generalization cuts both ways -- would the optimal game involve zero mechanics and manual dexterity? There are games that fulfill both requirements. However, they aren't real time strategy.
As to the games you mention that have superior interface to BW -- which one has had a longer competitive life (if any?).
I only played BW ages ago and never competitively (except for always trying to beat my opponents at our small LAN parties) and i'm just a ~2.9k diamond player, so basically a noob.
I'm mostly a spectator and i actually don't care about mechanics when watching. I want to see stuff die, it's as simple as that. I can appreciate clever drops on multiple locations, but i don't _care_ how hard they are to execute. I want to see strategy and action, not mechanics. Mechanics are boring to watch; Decision making is fun to watch.
I think about 80% of the esports fans will have a similar opinion, no matter what you say... i almost don't even dare to say it, but.... many don't even play SC2 (/SC2 Multiplayer) and never played BW but are still eSports fans and watch games. Yes, you veterans of this forum love your BW and as much as i concerned you can watch it as much as you want, i just don't think it's entertaining... it's an opinion as valid as yours.
Oh... and before i forget, SC2 is _shiny_... LAZERS! EXPLOSION! GREEN BANELING GOO!
First of all I must say I am both surpised and incredibly delighted by the opinions posted by both sides, it gives me hope that not everyone on both sides is blinded by what Hot_bid correctly puts as
''lot of the hardcore BW vs SC2 fanboys (on both sides) speak from a very close-minded, absolutist position of one "better" than the other.''
Thing is, the more I think about it the more I realize why you like it that much then. Some people indeed do not want the IU or interface, they do not want players to win based upon their macro mechanics which are only there because the IU was so bad at the time.
On top of that, it seems that alot of players can feel an attachment to SC2 because they play it themselves aswell, they experience the game most likely. They attempt to copy what is done by Pro's and find that amazing. Personally I couldn't dream of anything to copy in BW, but I can see that perhaps the distance between you and the pros is much smaller because you don't have to focus on those akward macro mechanics so that you too can be able to drift to a level closer to the pro, or atleast and produce perhaps similair results, or results which resemble it.
Ofcourse there are the graphics, but I never disputed that BW had better graphics and I can understand why some persons would not want to watch BW because it is simply 10 years old and looks simply outdated in today's context.
Lastly I would like to add a small argument about BW's defensive position vs SC2 once again outside of the game.
As you all know both these great games have been made by Blizzard. Currently however, the company we both love is sueing the Korean broadcasting companys OGN and MBC for stealing(might be a word in poor taste) IP, Intellectual property. If you want to know about this case read this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188322 Its contains a translated version of korean articles by Milkis.
Now regardless of people taking positions, the facts that both parties present or who is right or wrong. This does add to the defensive position that BW fans take fact, is that Blizzard advocates Sc2 currently much more then BW, it is not suprising, noone is suprised with it. However some close-minded people read this from both sides as Blizzard wants to destroy BW in order to have SC2 on television instead(frankly, from my biased point of view and perhaps poor reading skills it does sometimes seem that way from the linked thread before. It is however very close-minded to truly believe it without knowing all the facts, this is something which noone knows apart from the legal representatives and those residing in the actual court).
Regardless of outcome or who is right or wrong, this explains more why BW people find themselves ''threathened'' by SC2 people sometimes.
I like BW, but I got into SC2 first. I know how nailbiting those shuttle juke moments are. I know how much of a struggle it is to macro near-perfectly off 5 bases and still do sick swarms and position lurkers perfectly and get surrounds with zerglings and having played bw how much of a struggle it is TO JSUT MOVE YOUR SHIT ACROSS AN OPEN FIELD but even sitting there and actively thinking "Wow, that was pretty hard to do!" doesn't make it any more exciting to me. Not even every Brood War fan likes Flash despite the fact that he's probably the most skilled player. That says something to me about the role the skill of the people you're observing plays in how much you like watching it. Yeah, it's fun to watch people do something difficult very well, but it doesn't have primacy when I'm watching something for entertainment.
I don't know what it is about SC2. I like BW, I really do. Bisu vs Jaedong not too long ago was amazing. I watched Flash vs Effort and that was totally sick. I'm a Stork fan and tune into most of his games, and I love it practically every time. I was on the edge of my seat watching OSL finals VODs. But there's just something about a Clide vs Ace, a Clide vs Leenock, a Squirtle vs MVP that's just magic to me. Nothing tops it.
I think I have something in common with people who have been watching BW for a long time and are really passionate about it. Sometimes you're just watching a match, you're on the edge of your seat, eyes wide, watching every move, and you get that feeling in your stomach that something really incredible is happening. You lean forward, and you don't notice but your front teeth are sinking into your index finger. It's just... I dunno. I imagine I'm not the only one who feels that way sometimes. BW is great to watch but it doesn't do that for me. SC2 does.
Some people watch the NFL. Some people watch the NBA. Some people watch Premiere League. Some people watch college, some people watch pro. Don't hate.
On March 09 2011 17:34 Turgid wrote: I like BW, but I got into SC2 first. I know how nailbiting those shuttle juke moments are. I know how much of a struggle it is to macro near-perfectly off 5 bases and still do sick swarms and position lurkers perfectly and get surrounds with zerglings and having played bw how much of a struggle it is TO JSUT MOVE YOUR SHIT ACROSS AN OPEN FIELD but even sitting there and actively thinking "Wow, that was pretty hard to do!" doesn't make it any more exciting to me. Not even every Brood War fan likes Flash despite the fact that he's probably the most skilled player. That says something to me about the role the skill of the people you're observing plays in how much you like watching it. Yeah, it's fun to watch people do something difficult very well, but it doesn't have primacy when I'm watching something for entertainment.
I don't know what it is about SC2. I like BW, I really do. Bisu vs Jaedong not too long ago was amazing. I watched Flash vs Effort and that was totally sick. I'm a Stork fan and tune into most of his games, and I love it practically every time. I was on the edge of my seat watching OSL finals VODs. But there's just something about a Clide vs Ace, a Clide vs Leenock, a Squirtle vs MVP that's just magic to me. Nothing tops it.
I think I have something in common with people who have been watching BW for a long time and are really passionate about it. Sometimes you're just watching a match, you're on the edge of your seat, eyes wide, watching every move, and you get that feeling in your stomach that something really incredible is happening. You lean forward, and you don't notice but your front teeth are sinking into your index finger. It's just... I dunno. I imagine I'm not the only one who feels that way sometimes. BW is great to watch but it doesn't do that for me. SC2 does.
Some people watch the NFL. Some people watch the NBA. Some people watch Premiere League. Some people watch college, some people watch pro. Don't hate.
This is literally the first post I've read in TL that even slightly convinced me that there is something in SC2 beyond what I have seen (and what I have seen paled greatly to BW).
Being a new member to TL that basically came with SC2 I can tell you that there were only very few moments in SC2 where I was as excited as I was in the Flash v. Jaedong OSL/MSL Finals last season. I don't even remember which of the two it was (it's possible that this was actually from WCG semis) but in one game JD dropped a whole lot of stuff on Flash's tankline with is overlords coming from the side while attacking and microing in the front and of course macroing during. Since then I'm watching every game that has someone in it like: JD, Flash, Bisu (those three do not surprise, for me it's JD!!!! >>>Bisu>Flash) but also Sea and great for example. Almost any game I watch has some excitement, even ZvZ can be amazing now that Shark explained what to look for and some games just have these endless moments of "OMG WILL THAT WORK!?!?!?!?" And (yes this is getting longer) in BW you feel like stuff is happening everywhere and there is no moment to rest, because there is not that big deathball moving around the map or just actually idling in front of the natural waiting for something to happen or some timing to hit.
On March 09 2011 09:05 supernovamaniac wrote: [...] I actually beg to differ.
Have you seen those BroodWar matches that kept you on the edge of the seat? For example, ZvZ situation. Player A has 8 lings that are running towards Player B's base. Player B, however, has only 4 lings. B has 3 unused larvae, and those 3 morph at the same time. You wait in anxiety to see if those 3 larvae turn into drones or zerglings. If zerglings come out, Player B can successfully block the attack. However, if the drones come out, Player B will have a severe disadvantage. You wait on the edge of the seat to see what pops out.
However, in StarCraft 2, you know what the units are going to be even before they pop out. As soon as player hits the units, you know what's going to come out of the egg.
My point here? Extra information is actually ruining the observing aspect of StarCraft 2.
If the game was in StarCraft 2, I will know that Player B would've survived/died to the attack immediately, thus taking out the excitement/anxiety value of the match. In fact, when two armies battle in SC2, you can see the army value. Though this is only a rough estimate (and composition matters more than just the army value), the observers/spectators can guess that one player is going to win over the other player in the battle. If you cruise through the resources, you can predict which player is going to win based on the information.
However, in BroodWar, you don't have all these extra info. When Protoss's nexus is destroyed, the spectators/observers never know if the P player left 400 minerals for another nexus (399 incident anyone?). Though they use FPview to confirm how much minerals that it has few seconds later, the spectators are trying to figure out if the P player can make another nexus.
TBH, BW has more exciting moments because of the lack of information. With less information given to the spectators, the spectators have to guess what's going on, and hope that the player made the right decision. Sure, these moments will last for only few seconds, but that's what makes BW interesting.
-> Now onto SC2 even though I'm sure I have forgotten some points for BW. There has been some games by MC for example where I had the feeling he was everywhere, with one templar here and there (I think it was LT) and basically attacking everywhere. There has been Nada vs. July yesterday which was good, Nada could hold off more than I thought, so there it was again that "WILL THIS BE ENOUGH?!" Moment. What I enjoy most right now is the fact that SC2 is developing constantly and I do see more games where the whole map is used (what I mean is pretty much: no deathball and that's it). I am hoping this will go on and this game will be even better (doesn't have to be a copy of BW at anytime, just more action/stuff happening throughout the game), because if not... I can only hope BW will stay for much longer
ps. A little part now about playing BW.. I fucking miss muta micro in sc2... it sucks... god damn it sucks donkey balls : (( and I only found out about proper unit shoot-move micro about half a year ago with vultures for example, I never knew that and I played BW when it came out, but I was 10 or 9 and only played fastest :D so my BO was: start mining and hope to survive into build tanks into build turrets in the middle and siege tanks alongside
On March 09 2011 08:19 Kipsate wrote: ...flawed IU...
I can't believe no one corrected this... IU has no flaws!! :D sry had to
edit: nice thread btw kipsate, I don't think stuff like that has to turn into a flamewar and exchanging thoughts on the games could be helpful for both "sides" to appreciate the other part to, in the end, become one "side" that is TL
People are saying they agree that the BW AI was really poor, and made you do more things, and therefore, whatever cool stuff that players did (JangBi storm, Bisu's multidrops vs Savior, etc.) was more difficult.
Then, these same people follow it up by immediately saying, "But that doesn't impress me. I just wanna see cool stuff, I don't care how hard it was to do."
I feel like if you're a true competitive gamer, then moments that show extreme displays of skill are what evoke emotion from you. Visceral appeal to shiny things and explosions should not. For example, behold this collection of what many consider to be "great" moments from a variety of competitive endeavours:
All of the excitement from each of these moments is the product of the innate difficulty of the respective task. For the first video, the football fan going crazy isn't thinking, "Omg 1 handed catches are so cool they just looks awesome!" Rather, he's thinking, "Holy shit how did Manning and Tyree just do that? How the hell did they just pull that off? SO GOOD" (unless you're a Patriots fan, in which case the ONLY thought going through your mind is "FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-")
See, each of those events is exciting. What makes them exciting? The fact that they're special - unique, even. What makes them unique? The fact that whatever task you saw is hard as balls to do, and that only the best of the best can do it. If you take away the technical skill in any competition, whether it's Starcraft or something else, you're removing all of the value to a spectator.
So for the people who don't care how hard something is to execute, how much practice it takes just to pull off a single fancy move in whatever game, I leave you with this:
All of a sudden, you're living in a parallel universe where the concept of difficulty does not exist. Everyone can do everything. Random 5 year olds can make the same shots that Federer can, and quadriplegics can catch a football just as well as any NFL wide receiver. It doesn't matter whether you have 2 apm or 200 apm, you can do anything you want in Starcraft 2. Now what?
I don't think anyone's really completely dismissive of the role difficulty plays in making something exciting. At the very least it creates scarcity. It just isn't the only thing that matters. It may not even be the most important thing. It certainly isn't for me. I don't find it entertaining in the slightest to watch people play nethack or many other extremely difficult games but I'll obs low diamond 1v1 in SC2 any day.
On March 09 2011 18:54 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone's really completely dismissive of the role difficulty plays in making something exciting. At the very least it creates scarcity. It just isn't the only thing that matters.
I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters. What I am saying is that it is absolutely necessary, and absolutely not sufficient.
For a great moment from a spectator's point of view, you need to have several things. Firstly, you need the atmosphere to build it up. Something happening in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup is much more exciting for a spectator than something happening during some random game. You need to have the moment matter, as well. If a player does something incredibly difficult, but it has absolutely zero impact on the outcome of the game, then that makes for poor spectating.
But once you have those other prerequisite ingredients, I would say that you absolutely need the difficulty inherent in whatever impressive task we're discussing.
EDIT: In response to your edit: This may be a fundamental difference in opinion, then. I'm thoroughly bored when I obs random D- scrubs on iCCup. Occasionally I'll watch it for the laugh factor. I remember one game where the P and Z base traded most of their bases, and the P only had one observer left, while the Z had lurkers still on the map. P hasn't even started rebuilding his robo. Then their armies clash once, and P storms his own observer.
But other than that, I actually find them quite painful. I simply don't find things that I can do interesting. While spectating whatever's going on, I will inevitably think, "Psh, I can do that," and then dismiss it. I'm incredibly impressed when people do things that I can't do, as I am right now or even with a year of practice.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
I interpreted him as talking about macro and stuff in particular, eg he's impressed by army clickin and not barracks clickin.
And I think the experience I've already elucidated clearly shows that, at least for me, while I suppose I'm more impressed by Flash than MC(in an academic way) it doesn't mean I'd rather WATCH Flash than MC. What Flash does is more difficult, but it doesn't make it more interesting or more fun to watch. For me. For many people who play and watch SC2.
Though I'll reiterate in case someone sees this but misses my post earlier in the thread: I watch and enjoy Brood War.
One thing that's been bothering me about BW lately is LR threads. Any player who isn't Flash, Jaedong, Stork, or Bisu gets relentlessly bashed, while the SC2 fans are more welcoming to new players since the game is still new. I know this has been happening for a while but it seems more escalated now.
Also, there's the "IdrA challenge": If SC2 is so easy, why aren't you pro?
The biggest issue I have with sc2 really is that it uses the title "starcraft" and not only rides entirely on the shoulders of it's predecessor, but then the people standing up there have the gall to claim their game is better. I mean where is the TL Warcraft 3 sub forum? The Shogun Total War 2 countdown? I care about those games about as much as I care about sc2.
To me, sc2 is a great game, but other than the fact that it happens to have starcraft in it's title, I see no reason to differentiate it from any other non-BW RTS game. It's like, just because BW was so successful, we at TL are somehow obliged to include sc2. I'm still super bitter that this random new game has completely taken over what used to be a premier BW site. I mean it still is, but really..
Just look at the featured news, like 1/20 is BW, the rest SC2. The OSL finals write up was front paged for like half a day for Christs sakes. The OSL! That is still the ultimate, absolute, most prestigious individual league gaming tournament period. And the calander, don't even get me started. I have to scroll past like 30 pages of really small, largely irrelevant sc2 tournaments casted by some random people in order to find the next time I get to see OZ vs Fox or KT vs SKT.
KT vs SKT Really? Like the most notorious team rivalry of all time in starcraft doesn't even get a bolded title or something? Hell, the calendar is so cluttered, most of it is now text describing wtf each little tournament is.
SC2 is a perfectly fine game, I just wish someone made TeamSolid.net or something and left TL alone. I admit, I've flamed and raged in all those BW vs SC2 threads too many times after clicking on "featured streams" and only getting a bajillion no-name, low diamond sc2 streams.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
I think it really depends on how the increase in difficulty is handled. I think the wrong way to handle the situation is to artificially increase the difficulty by making the UI or AI more cumbersome. As much as some people dislike MBS, automine, unlimited selection, and smart cast, removing these features at this point would cause an irreparable shitstorm to occur from the majority of players.
SC2's UI was designed not to remove skill, but to relegate that skill to other locations.
I think of it with this analogy: Playing BW was like trying to run a marathon with weights on arms and legs while wearing flip flops. Playing SC2 is like trying to run the same marathon but with proper shoes and without the weights. You can run the same speed in SC2 with less effort, but you can also run much faster without artificial handicaps weighing you down.
This is why I dislike the argument that SC2 requires less mechanical skill and APM. Sure, it requires less to do the same amount of stuff as in BW. However, that doesn't mean that the extra mechanical skill and APM can't go towards things like increased multitasking or more precise micro. Sure, it's easier to macro off of 5 bases in SC2, but that only means that all that attention can be relegated to multitasking several simultaneous drops while microing spellcasters at the front.
For example, during the Ret vs SlayerS_M games of the recent Code A tournament, Ret tried to macro off of several bases, which turned out to be more of a handicap than an actual advantage. M had superior multitasking, and was able to pull off multiple simultaneous drops against Ret's bases while taking advantage of Ret's diverted attention by pushing towards his main and sniping countless Infestors that were left idle by Ret's weaker multitasking. Mechanical skills still play a part in the game, just in different ways other than the ability to macro.
Back to your question. I think the answer lies not with the UI but instead with the actual units in the game. A ton of units in BW were extremely powerful but difficult to use, like the Reaver+Shuttle, Defiler, and Mutas. SC2 has fewer of these types of units, but they still exist. Watching perfect Banshee or Void Ray micro is entertaining, especially when the player gets the maximum number of kills possible before escaping at the last second with one shot away from death. Drop micro is heavily underused, especially for Protoss, but it still exists. Marine micro and splits will always be entertaining.
Heck, TLO used some impressive drop micro against Nada during a showmatch back during IEM Cologne (I think). TLO rotated hellions in and out of his dropship, perfectly syncing the timing to dodge marauder shots. I've also seen players do the same thing with Immortals and Warp Prisms, and I'm surprised that it isn't more popular. Hell, Storm Drops are way too underused even though they can still do terrible, terrible damage.
SC2 needs a true equivalent of the Reaver+Shuttle for it to gain more spectator entertainment value. The current repertoire of units in the game is a good foundation, and I think it wouldn't be difficult for Blizzard to add a few "powerful but hard to use" units to spice up the game in the next expansions. It's not like the Reaver+Shuttle was completely game breaking anyways. You just couldn't mass up Reavers and win like you would with Colossi. Lower level players would be better off improving their macro, while the special units would only enhance the play of those already with proper fundamentals.
--------
Anyways, I don't think SC2 should replicate BW. Too many people outside of TL find SC2 to only be a BW clone. You have to admit, it's impossible to make a Starcraft sequel that appeals to both the BW enthusiasts in addition to the people looking for something that isn't "BW with better graphics." Blizzard tried hard to compromise, and I think they did a decent job despite alienating parts of either end of the spectrum of casual and hardcore players.
IMO, the average SC2 game may be less entertaining than the average BW game right now, but the quality of SC2 games are improving, especially in the Korean scene. The best matches of SC2 (MVP vs Squirtle, San vs Nestea, Jinro vs MC, Clide vs Leenock) are almost as entertaining, if not more so, than the best matches of BW. With new maps entering the competitive scene, the focus of the game will definitely shift away from a passive ball vs ball game to BW-esque games featuring aggression and harass in addition to long macro games.
Also, I don't think SC2 has truly been figured out in many respects. For example, BW TvT was pretty much mech vs mech, tank line vs tank line. I've seen many posts in LR threads where people dread the 20 minute tank vs tank stalemate TvT games.
However, SC2 TvT is still a wild beast with a much greater repertoire of viable builds. Terrans can go pure Bio, pure mech, a mech+bio hybrid, or perhaps even the iEchoic no-tank build in SC2 TvTs. I recently saw a show match between Boxer and Nada where Nada abused the mobility of bio against Boxer's more conventional tank lines.
This is why I feel like watching the best of SC2 is extremely entertaining. Despite all the naysayers, not everything has been figured out, and the game is far from being truly figured out. Until I see Protoss utilizing Warp Prisms more a la BW style, I don't think SC2 is close to being played at the optimal level.
This is why I find GSL so entertaining; every time I tune in, I experience the possibility of watching the next evolution of the metagame unfold before my eyes. It was only during GSL4 when Boxer unveiled the mass Orbitals strategy that has become increasingly popular in late game TvX. It was truly a treat to witness MKP revolutionize TvZ in GSL2 with his aggressive, micro-heavy mass-marines style. Watching GuineaPig's unique Forge FE into sky Protoss style was awe-inspiring, and even though Hyperdub and MKP were knocked out in GSL5, their attempts at the no-tank iEchoic build indicated that it was possibly a viable strategy at high levels.
Of course, people bash on PvP for being a one-dimensional 4gate fest, especially since it rarely goes into a truly entertaining late game. However, I think ZvZ in BW wasn't much different at some points in time. Both SC2 PvP and BW ZvZ are often considered to be broken, 10 minute micro battles at the highest levels. However, BW ZvZ can occasionally suddenly become extremely deep once the muta battle subsides and both players reach Hive tech. Likewise, I feel that SC2 PvP will soon experience a similar revolution where breaking out of the 4gate openers may unveil an entertaining late game that revolves around more than Colossi counts.
IMO, watching SC2 and its competitive scene is like watching BW in fast motion. The metagame shifts every few weeks, yet there is still a long ways to go before optimal play is reached. The drama in the competitive scene is already developing, and the Western competitive scene is exploding in popularity and may have the possibility of breaking out of its niche as an e-sport.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
That does not matter to you, but it does to me, I care about the means used to achieve such a result, thats why it is so amazing what players can do. You can not fathom to copy or be near such players, they are clearly so much better then the rest. And that factor attributes to the spectatorship and becoming a fan of a certain player. The means to an end matter for some people and appearently not for you, but that is oke.
On March 09 2011 09:46 awu25 wrote: The only thing I can't get over is this argument of "the game is too easy."
Blizzard said it themselves that they are making a game that is easy for a casual to be 'good/decent'.
On March 09 2011 19:31 jalstar wrote: I watch both. They're both great RTS games.
One thing that's been bothering me about BW lately is LR threads. Any player who isn't Flash, Jaedong, Stork, or Bisu gets relentlessly bashed, while the SC2 fans are more welcoming to new players since the game is still new. I know this has been happening for a while but it seems more escalated now.
Also, there's the "IdrA challenge": If SC2 is so easy, why aren't you pro?
There are other likable player like Stats, Baby, FBH, Sea, Great, Hydra to name some .. It's very rare to see these guys being bashed. And I don't see it as bashing, it's more of the emotional investment they have on certain players/teams.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
That does not matter to you, but it does to me, I care about the means used to achieve such a result, thats why it is so amazing what players can do. You can not fathom to copy or be near such players, they are clearly so much better then the rest. And that factor attributes to the spectatorship and becoming a fan of a certain player. The means to an end matter for some people and appearently not for you, but that is oke.
The post you quoted is really silly. Even if you 'don't care how it was achieved' the clear difference is, you get Jangbi storms in every game, you get BeSt macro every game, so why would these things be continually impressive. I guess i can't understand how simply the result would impress anyone. Of course SC2 still requires heavy multitask particularly late game but personally, to me i find something like Snow's harassment PvZ (for a recent example) far better to watch spectator wise, even with the harder macro and 12 unit groups he still manages to drop all over the place.
The first few points you make about the skill required to macro/cast without smartcast/get your dragoons to walk down a ramp/etc all tie back to the #1 thing I dislike about Brood War: namely, that for nearly 100% of the user base (basically everyone who isn't Bisu/Flash/Jaedong/Stork), the game is a contest to see who is better at manipulating a crappy interface. And, for me, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting game- it's about as interesting as a contest to see who is best at doing productive work in CDE/Motif. I doubt many people would think that using CDE is an entertaining experience, but for the vast majority of players, Brood War is just CDE with blood, explosions, and cool sound effects.
Yet aren't all RTS games, boiled down to a minimalist core, all about the ability for a player to make the correct mouseclicks and tap the correct keys at the right time?
There's a big difference in being able to make the correct clicks due to "game-logic" decision making and being able to make them because you're better at using a bad interface.
The generalization cuts both ways -- would the optimal game involve zero mechanics and manual dexterity? There are games that fulfill both requirements. However, they aren't real time strategy.
IMO, the closer a strategy game gets to this, the better, even if it's an RTS. Supreme Commander made huge strides in this direction, and this was the primary reason it was popular (otherwise, it certainly wouldn't have been successful enough to have an expansion, given that without the expansion, the game was fairly broken).
And, before the inevitable "just play TB!" argument comes out, there are other advantages to RTS over TBS- the primary one being that RTS requires much less abstraction of mechanics.
As to the games you mention that have superior interface to BW -- which one has had a longer competitive life (if any?).
BW's success had just as much to do with the fact that it was a networkable game with low system requirements at a time when PC Bangs were becoming popular in Korea as it did anything about the game itself. TA wouldn't have fit the bill because it's system requirements were too high at the time, and once BW became popular, there was a snowball's chance in hell of an RTS that wasn't made by Blizz becoming competitive.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool?
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool?
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool?
Except the "one button" example has exactly one decision point.
Templar micro in BW and SC2 have the exact same number of decision points. It's just that you need twice the clicks to do it in BW.
Obscura.304 explained the core part already for me, but to emphasize my standpoint:
The _decision making_ is the part i like. Using storm is an decision, dropping at 50 places at once is a decision, attacking and retreating are decisions. Yes, i know that for those that know and care, BW looks better because everything is harder to do and _you players_ appreciate that, but do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
I know that muta micro, reaver shuttles, dragoon control, etc. are hard and i appreciate the skill of those using it, but from an observer standpoint there is no difference between someone using storms in BW and someone using storms in SC2, except that the latter looks better thanks to the more modern graphics.
Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
I never really understood the "it's harder, so it's more interesting to watch" standpoint though... so maybe i'm just too stupid or something.
On March 09 2011 19:05 Turgid wrote: I don't think anyone disagrees with you though. Virtually everybody who watches SC2 regularly is impressed by the displays of skill in it. Nobody reacts to ChoyafOu's micro the same way they do oGsMC's.
For one thing, Morfildur up there disagrees with me.
Anyway, the next logical thing to ask is this: would making the displays of skill more difficult make them more impressive as well?
We just seem to have a different opionion of "display of skill". I don't care how fast someone can click to build units, it doesn't matter to me. Wether he uses one click to build 100 units or 100 clicks to build one units and does it in the same time... i don't care.
Wether he uses 1 click to storm or 2 (smartcasting)... who cares?
What matters to the observer is the result, not what was done to achieve it.
So, for argument's sake, let's say in Starcraft 3 you can just click 1 button, and an entire 30 minute game complete with harassment, big army battles, etc plays out for you. You still had to click that one button, so you're still 'playing' the game. By your argument, that's still incredibly exciting because the end result (big battles, lots of harassment) is cool?
Except the "one button" example has exactly one decision point.
Templar micro in BW and SC2 have the exact same number of decision points. It's just that you need twice the clicks to do it in BW.
do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
Yes of course it plays a factor. Part of the reason sport is so great is because you can't do that. The bigger the gap between the viewer and the player, the more impressive it is.
It's not the only thing that makes the game exciting to watch, and for many it's probably not even the biggest, but it's still important.
On March 10 2011 00:29 Morfildur wrote: Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
Neither. Why would I watch something that I don't understand? That's the reason I wasn't a big fan of American football, for example, even though I went to high school in the US. I didn't understand the game, so I couldn't appreciate great plays.
When I find something that I am interested in and want to watch, I learn everything I possibly can about it. If it's not too expensive/difficult, I also try to do it myself to at least a competitive amateur level. For me, that's how I can truly appreciate any activity, whether it's a video game, sport, instrument, or something else.
If I wanted to just see pretty graphics and explosions, I'd watch a Michael Bay movie.
Edit: And of course, Chill is absolutely right. You talked about there being the same number of "decision points" to storm in both games. So does that mean watching Federer play tennis is the same as watching some random amateur? They both made the same number of "decision points" when choosing what kind of shots to take.
I reckon that 7 months after SC1 was released that most of the advanced micro tricks shown today were nowhere in site. I know people say this all the time but be patient SC2 is young. Will it ever have as much and as exciting micro as BW? unlikely. Will it ever have new tricks and more exciting micro then being shown currently? Most definetly.
I also think that blizzard is aware of some concerns and that we will see changes come expansions. Whether it be new units or new abilities or both, i think(hope) blizzard recognizes the need and will try their best. But just like with my first paragraph, we can only just be patient and wait.
Im not sure if you have seen it but their is a new a custom map for SC2 where the unit radius' are enlarged to avoid such things as balls of death. I think it looks really good and would love if blizzard looked into that, but i wont get my hopes up. It would likely involve rebalancing alot but i think it would be worth it.
Anyways my two cents on sc2 fans: you cannot be upset for people choosing the better looking, more friendly/casual game. Lets say i was interested in playing BW right now. Just starting up for the first time. Now personally i dont have a whole lot of time to play, but i enjoy to follow the scene. If i were to go to BW i would likely get demolished for months as most people who still play BW will be rather good for a newbie to face. As someone who does not have alot of time to play, that is not very enticing. BW may very well be a much better game but id rather use what time i have to play a game i can have fun winning and learning. It is more than comparing game to game (if you insist on comparing them) its also about comparing communities, casual friendliness, e-sports scene, etc. All of which i would debate that SC2 is better at, and all help increase the experience of the game.
Because this is devolving into a 'BW takes more skill then SC2, how can you like something that takes less skill'-argument, consider this:
Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are: 1) Hitting a baseball 2) Driving a racecar 3) Polevaulting
Yet, not everyone is a baseball fan, pretty much half the world hates everything about Formula-1 and 15 people worldwide watch polevaulting. People become a fan of a certain sport for different reasons, the skill required to play a sport only plays a minor role. You become a fan because you play yourself on an amateur level, because you really like how a certain player is on the field, or for all I care, because you really like the team shirt.
I watch tennis because I really like Federer/Djoko and a few others. I watch the champions league because I root for barca. I watch the superbowl because of all the over-american anthics and because it's weird as hell. I watch the tour de france because it's relaxing to sit on a couch and watch people drive around scenic castles and stuff like that.
I don't watch any athletics, yet I am sure it takes tremendous skill, and the same goes for figureskating, chess, etc.
In the end, do you really have to justify what sport you follow and why you're doing it?
On March 10 2011 01:43 Derez wrote: Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are: 1) Hitting a baseball 2) Driving a racecar 3) Polevaulting
Uh...what? Seriously, where did you get that from? O_o
On March 10 2011 01:43 Derez wrote: Because this is devolving into a 'BW takes more skill then SC2, how can you like something that takes less skill'-argument, consider this:
Arguably, the hardest things in professional sports are: 1) Hitting a baseball 2) Driving a racecar 3) Polevaulting
Yet, not everyone is a baseball fan, pretty much half the world hates everything about Formula-1 and 15 people worldwide watch polevaulting. People become a fan of a certain sport for different reasons, the skill required to play a sport only plays a minor role. You become a fan because you play yourself on an amateur level, because you really like how a certain player is on the field, or for all I care, because you really like the team shirt.
I watch tennis because I really like Federer/Djoko and a few others. I watch the champions league because I root for barca. I watch the superbowl because of all the over-american anthics and because it's weird as hell. I watch the tour de france because it's relaxing to sit on a couch and watch people drive around scenic castles and stuff like that.
I don't watch any athletics, yet I am sure it takes tremendous skill, and the same goes for figureskating, chess, etc.
In the end, do you really have to justify what sport you follow and why you're doing it?
Just to clarify , these mechanics is not the sole reason as Chill stated why some people like me prefer BW over SC2 however it is however one of the reasons. Do I feel like I have to justify why I like BW?Yes, why? because I am tired of all the posts from close-minded people who just bash (from both sides) and have no understanding of why one would like each of the games more then the other.
I'd like to add another reason why harder mechanics are better for the spectator : if everybody in the top 200 protoss has the same level in casting storm, where is the wow factor ? In bw, very few people were able to achieve "jangbi storm". In sc2, I doubt there is much difference between good players, and I haven't seen it in any case. Plus, in the case of storm, it forces blizzard to nerf it, which make the whole battle between the stormer and storm dodging much less spectacular and important.
I'd even argue that the best way to solve the problems forcefield seem to pose would be to remove smart casting, but hey, that's my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, if you're really interested only in strategy, you should probably watch bw over sc2 : strategy are much more developped and complex in bw at the moment (if you're not convinced, you probably need to read a few Ver posts for instance). Strategy is probably the biggest reason I still watch BW four years after.
Obscura.304 explained the core part already for me, but to emphasize my standpoint:
The _decision making_ is the part i like. Using storm is an decision, dropping at 50 places at once is a decision, attacking and retreating are decisions. Yes, i know that for those that know and care, BW looks better because everything is harder to do and _you players_ appreciate that, but do you think the average guy that maybe never played the game and only watched it on TV would care about how many clicks are needed for an action?
I know that muta micro, reaver shuttles, dragoon control, etc. are hard and i appreciate the skill of those using it, but from an observer standpoint there is no difference between someone using storms in BW and someone using storms in SC2, except that the latter looks better thanks to the more modern graphics.
Just imagine you would _not know anything_ about BW or SC2, except for maybe some unit names, which game would you rather watch?
I never really understood the "it's harder, so it's more interesting to watch" standpoint though... so maybe i'm just too stupid or something.
There is a huge difference if I watch SCII and SCBW. For that matter any 'newer' RTS title and SCBW. Even without knowing how hard it is. SCBW may be such a good thing to watch, especially if you have no clue about the game flow. Overview is better with horribly outdated and simple grafic. It's way cleaner and it lacks of effects. The better grafics get, the more grafics are used to show effects that could be designed way simpler, the harder it gets to understand whats going on. Take Terrans in SCBW: you know what unit can do what because you can related those units at least remotely to reality. Even if shit goes down there are only a few exceptions where the overview gets lost. I can see that huge muta fights are fucking hard to judge if more than 50 units are involved. The other one would be a mass carrier attack. But still, it's very easy to see who wins a fight seconds after the fight begun. I started BW with replays and had a good overview what was happening despite it being so minimalistic and tiny. In addition, I'm colorblind. The terrain still doesn't confuse me at all (exception would be ice) - I can still see everything without being confused. Mirror matches are easy to judge, once the observer switches to red / yellow. There are no two huge balls of shit clashing into each other. Doesn't matter which new title I look at: those are mostly full of effects. It takes way longer to get a decent idea of what is going on, which does what and so on. I never had those problems with BW. I didn't even get what was going on after my 50 matches of SCII. Like I still have problems following mirror matches there. I admit that I'm a giant noob in that game, I never played it seriously and never even tried to, simply due to the fact that it does not interest me at all. No hard feelings for people who like all that shiny explosion stuff or the fancy micro.
On March 10 2011 01:13 TheAura wrote: I reckon that 7 months after SC1 was released that most of the advanced micro tricks shown today were nowhere in site. I know people say this all the time but be patient SC2 is young. Will it ever have as much and as exciting micro as BW? unlikely. Will it ever have new tricks and more exciting micro then being shown currently? Most definetly.
This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
What really pisses me off everytime such a standard discussion starts: most SCII players talk as if they ever played SCBW seriously, and knew what is the fun part about SCBW. Dude, I really don't care why you like your game, I really don't care what you think is better. I won't declare you to "idiot of the year", only because you have a different taste. I wouldn't flame you for being a soccer fan if I was to play basket ball. Let's follow this logic. I don't go over to another sport and declare that their scene is overaged, conservative and that they should change the rules, add bigger goals for example and add twenty players, so they don't have to run that fast. I don't tell them that their opinions of having fun are stupid. I like the way SCBW is, I don't need additions. If I needed them I'd changed the title. Simple truth is, SCBW is perfect for me. Don't tell me that the Interface is crap, I know that already. Guess what, that is a part that motivates me. I can always tell what detail I have to train. The training is the challenge for me. The harder a move is, the more fun I have trying to learn it and the happier I will be, once I actually make it happen. If you don't like that idea, well then it's ok. I guess SCII offers a lot of fun, to watch, to play. Not for me. Accept that. Futhermore: stop telling new players to not try out SCBW. SCBW makes fun, even on a low skill level. If you deny an older game new users, simply because you're not having fun with that older game, then let it go. If you're really convinced that the other game sucks, than those curious players will return and stay with SCII. No harm done. No need to fight over them. To the players that tried out BW and didn't like it: not our fault, we did not design the game, we did not let you win because we're not wanting new players. If it isn't fun, accept it. Stop blaming the game for having a hard interface or an extremely competetive scene. It's simply you that had not had any fun. It's not a shame if you didn't like it. Makes you not a loser, nor a winner that found out that this game is overrated. It is not. It is a game. Switch if you have more fun elsewhere. Don't be a bad loser and flame those, who have fun. If you still troll around about that, you're not better than a child that isn't allowed to eat candy when it wants to.
I don't understand your post. It's 50 lines of "I like SCBW - deal with it." Who are you talking to?
Edit: And after you have 10 lines explaining that you don't care what other people think or what their preferences are, you go on a 40 line tyrade explaining what you think and what your preferences are.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Edit 2: And the post you're quoting isn't even related to your post. What the fuck. Micro didn't really even exist after 7 months in BW, and there will be a lot of tricks developed in the future of SC2, as in all games. I agree with the quoted post in its entirety.
This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
it sure took awhile for people to even micro split marines away from banelings, and that is rather straightforward.
Im not saying that is going to take years, but give it more time than 7 months before you claim that there is nothing more to learn about microing in SC2.
It is definetly evolving way faster than any RTS before, the fact is though, especially with 2 expansions coming out, that there will be plenty of time and room for micro to evolve. I dont know much about how SC was before BW, but im sure BW improved it alot. So shall HoTS the other expansion.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
I got into SC/SC2 right when the SC2 first look videos came out, and I started watching a lot of BW matches right then. It was entertaining, and I liked it, but as soon as the SC2 beta came out and people started streaming, and tournaments started going, I immediately jumped to that as it was much clearer what was going on and people were coming up with something new and exciting every single week it seemed. I tried to go back to watching BW, but after watching just a little SC2, i could not go back. I'd never played either, so what you called amazing micro/macro was just "normal" to me. By the same token, what happened in SC2 was "normal" to me, but the level of play quickly started ramping up, and seeing games like Kiwi's amazing 5 blink stalkers vs an entire base game was just amazing and jaw-dropping to me, because noone had really done anything like that before.
It all basically comes down too......what do you feel like following? I tried to get into BW after SC2, but it just didn't click to me. It's just meh. It looks like crap, and I've played too many RTS games to go back to a 1998 UI. SC2 has plenty of drama for me, as well as an untouchable skill ceiling.
I'm also going to say that some of your pure nostalgiac bias shines brightly in this thread. Saying things like you prefer to know less as a spectator.........that knowing everything that is going on is bad. ROFL? Then just turn your video off and listen to the game based on sound. YOu'll hear that intense battle going on, storms going off, units dying, WHO IS GOING TO COME OUT AHEAD??!?!?!? BS. More information is more exciting. It lets you think on the same level as the player.
Edit: also, I will fully agree that SC2 is being played at an extremely crappy level right now. Even watching the "best" the game has to offer, and even with all the advantages of a much better UI, and easier mechanics, they still make an epic ton of mistakes that even I as a casual observer can pick out. So give it more time before trashing it for not being exciting.
This makes me sort of facepalm everytime I read it. When SC came out the internet wasn't as big as it is today. No streams, no VODs, no Replays, few guides, less active and big forums, no nothing. You simply can not compare the release dates of those two games. The whole infrastructure around new titles are way, way better. You have a lot of really experienced RTS players switching over that have mechanics that can be transferred. Mechanics that even need MORE input than before are mere basics for people who switched over from SCBW. They start with a giant plus into that new game.If the interface / control wasn't made harder, there would be no reason to get a slower development in terms of micro and so on. SCII is hyped hardcore in the foreign world. Dunno if there was a bigger hyped title ever. It has got so many players that it really should evolve WAY FASTER than any RTS before, if you believe the hype. There is literally nothing that needs to be invented to analyse this game.
it sure took awhile for people to even micro split marines away from banelings, and that is rather straightforward.
Im not saying that is going to take years, but give it more time than 7 months before you claim that there is nothing more to learn about microing in SC2.
It is definetly evolving way faster than any RTS before, the fact is though, especially with 2 expansions coming out, that there will be plenty of time and room for micro to evolve. I dont know much about how SC was before BW, but im sure BW improved it alot. So shall HoTS the other expansion.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
To the guy above, your first paragraph were pretty good and convincing and ok, why did you write the last one ?
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
It's presumed that would be the job of commentator to explain it to you.
If I may add 2 more of my cents to this discussion:
I think it's all a matter of opinion.
I may enjoy Coke, but may hate Pepsi. Pepsi fans can try their hardest to describe to me how wonderful Pepsi is and how disgusting Coke is, yet that doesn't stop me from flat out enjoying Coke. (fyi, I'm actually a Dr Pepper fan lol).
The taste buds of one person differ greatly from the taste buds of others. Likewise, the game preferences of one player will often differ from those of another player, and oftentimes these preferences just simply can't be put into proper words. SC2/BW fans can try their hardest to convince BW/SC2 fans why their game is better, but these arguments are all in vain until the fans actually try the games out for themselves and judge them from their own experiences.
I enjoy both games for different reasons. I enjoy BW for its legacy, and I enjoy SC2 for its potential. SC2 is obviously trying to become an e-sport without placing too much of an emphasis on mechanical skill, and it is possible that it may succeed despite people claiming that it's "dumbed down."
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
It's presumed that would be the job of commentator to explain it to you.
But I have had it explained. Then I rewatched it. Still means nothing to me because I haven't played the game.
Eh, I didn't really appreciate watching any SC2 games until I started playing it myself. Whenever I watch vods of RTS games I've never played before I will almost never be impressed. I'll admit that I still definitely enjoy watching BW vods more and it has to do with both the fact that I've had much longer relationship with the game and also due to the fact that the game is more complete. SC2 isn't complete yet as it's just a given that the future expansions with add in more things. Because of this I just can't really blow away SC2 just because I still think BW is better. The game isn't complete yet. I don't play games as much as I used to at all though, so it's likely that I'll never get into SC2 the way I did with BW - life is too busy now.
I do think that SC2 has the capability to become just as great as BW did, but even if it does, I probably won't be around and/or be uninterested because I don't play much games anymore.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
Well personally i have no problems with how blizzard is going about this. It seems most people expect blizzard to release new balance patches on a weekly basis. Its not a fast process, it must be tested, and they cant make too many changes at once. Also, as a player, i would be annoyed if every few weeks there was a new balance change and had to learn what all changes and whatnot and how strategies changed. HoTS beta should not be too far away, and i would expect lots of different ideas and testing to go through that. Anyways im rambling off topic now.
Anyways SC2 had some crazy things in it a year ago, it is quite different now.. In the end i just wish people could play the game, watch how it will evolve, and be patient for the changes to arrive, rather than bash blizzard and the game now, as i guarantee they will be great and for the best.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
It's presumed that would be the job of commentator to explain it to you.
But I have had it explained. Then I rewatched it. Still means nothing to me because I haven't played the game.
I haven't driven a racing car but I can still feel something is difficult by the commentator's excitement and his explanation.
I'm talking about an English commentator during the time of the move, not reading text and then going back to rewatch it. Of course that wouldn't have the same feeling.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
Well personally i have no problems with how blizzard is going about this. It seems most people expect blizzard to release new balance patches on a weekly basis. Its not a fast process, it must be tested, and they cant make too many changes at once. Also, as a player, i would be annoyed if every few weeks there was a new balance change and had to learn what all changes and whatnot and how strategies changed. HoTS beta should not be too far away, and i would expect lots of different ideas and testing to go through that. Anyways im rambling off topic now.
Anyways SC2 had some crazy things in it a year ago, it is quite different now.. In the end i just wish people could play the game, watch how it will evolve, and be patient for the changes to arrive, rather than bash blizzard and the game now, as i guarantee they will be great and for the best.
Why should I play and watch a game for what it might become, when I have one that I enjoy much more at the moment ? Chill, if you cast TSL3, I might even tune it to watch it^^
Why should I play and watch a game for what it might become, when I have one that I enjoy much more at the moment ?
I dont care what you watch or play, my point is for people to stop complaining about the micro in SC2 at such an early stage, and to just enjoy the game and be patient for changes if you don't like it so far.
On March 10 2011 02:41 eviltomahawk wrote: SC2/BW fans can try their hardest to convince BW/SC2 fans why their game is better, but these arguments are all in vain until the fans actually try the games out for themselves and judge them from their own experiences.
This is my biggest problem with people on both sides. Most of the flamers haven't actually played the other game so they have no idea what they're talking about. This is also why I keep playing/watching both games despite enjoying BW more. I want to be able to make informed arguments.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
Well personally i have no problems with how blizzard is going about this. It seems most people expect blizzard to release new balance patches on a weekly basis. Its not a fast process, it must be tested, and they cant make too many changes at once. Also, as a player, i would be annoyed if every few weeks there was a new balance change and had to learn what all changes and whatnot and how strategies changed. HoTS beta should not be too far away, and i would expect lots of different ideas and testing to go through that. Anyways im rambling off topic now.
Anyways SC2 had some crazy things in it a year ago, it is quite different now.. In the end i just wish people could play the game, watch how it will evolve, and be patient for the changes to arrive, rather than bash blizzard and the game now, as i guarantee they will be great and for the best.
Why should I play and watch a game for what it might become, when I have one that I enjoy much more at the moment ? Chill, if you cast TSL3, I might even tune it to watch it^^
No one is forcing you to watch SC2. It's perfectly fine and respectable for you to play and follow BW nowadays. You are completely entitled to ignoring the SC2 scene entirely and following the BW exclusively. If Blizzard fails SC2, you wouldn't notice a thing, and the status quo would be maintained.
Nevertheless, SC2 does produce some nice matches that are worth checking out from time to time out of curiosity.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
Well personally i have no problems with how blizzard is going about this. It seems most people expect blizzard to release new balance patches on a weekly basis. Its not a fast process, it must be tested, and they cant make too many changes at once. Also, as a player, i would be annoyed if every few weeks there was a new balance change and had to learn what all changes and whatnot and how strategies changed. HoTS beta should not be too far away, and i would expect lots of different ideas and testing to go through that. Anyways im rambling off topic now.
Anyways SC2 had some crazy things in it a year ago, it is quite different now.. In the end i just wish people could play the game, watch how it will evolve, and be patient for the changes to arrive, rather than bash blizzard and the game now, as i guarantee they will be great and for the best.
Why should I play and watch a game for what it might become, when I have one that I enjoy much more at the moment ? Chill, if you cast TSL3, I might even tune it to watch it^^
No one is forcing you to watch SC2. It's perfectly fine and respectable for you to play and follow BW nowadays. You are completely entitled to ignoring the SC2 scene entirely and following the BW exclusively. If Blizzard fails SC2, you wouldn't notice a thing, and the status quo would be maintained.
Nevertheless, SC2 does produce some nice matches that are worth checking out from time to time out of curiosity.
Oh I do. What I criticize is is the idea "I watch the game because one day the micro will (might) be good", I find that... especially has there are good arguments saying it probably won't change. But as I said, I'll watch what comes out of the expansions. On the other hand, there have been pretty good reasons given in this thread (in the first few posts following Hot Bid's for instance). I'd like to see those good and entertaining game of sc2,because honestly, trying to download VODs of highly rated games on internet has cost me more annoyance than reward so far :/ But I keep checking...
One barrier of entry here is, of course, that the best SC2 matches cost money. If you have a spare $5, buy the season pass for GSL Team League and check out the finals between Startale and IM. Mainly set 6.
I'm gonna requote my post from earlier in the thread because, not to toot my own horn or anything, but I think I did a pretty good job of suggesting what motivates a really devoted SC2 fan. I don't personally feel anything more needs to be said, at least for my part.
On March 09 2011 17:34 Turgid wrote: I like BW, but I got into SC2 first. I know how nailbiting those shuttle juke moments are. I know how much of a struggle it is to macro near-perfectly off 5 bases and still do sick swarms and position lurkers perfectly and get surrounds with zerglings and having played bw how much of a struggle it is TO JSUT MOVE YOUR SHIT ACROSS AN OPEN FIELD but even sitting there and actively thinking "Wow, that was pretty hard to do!" doesn't make it any more exciting to me. Not even every Brood War fan likes Flash despite the fact that he's probably the most skilled player. That says something to me about the role the skill of the people you're observing plays in how much you like watching it. Yeah, it's fun to watch people do something difficult very well, but it doesn't have primacy when I'm watching something for entertainment.
I don't know what it is about SC2. I like BW, I really do. Bisu vs Jaedong not too long ago was amazing. I watched Flash vs Effort and that was totally sick. I'm a Stork fan and tune into most of his games, and I love it practically every time. I was on the edge of my seat watching OSL finals VODs. But there's just something about a Clide vs Ace, a Clide vs Leenock, a Squirtle vs MVP that's just magic to me. Nothing tops it.
I think I have something in common with people who have been watching BW for a long time and are really passionate about it. Sometimes you're just watching a match, you're on the edge of your seat, eyes wide, watching every move, and you get that feeling in your stomach that something really incredible is happening. You lean forward, and you don't notice but your front teeth are sinking into your index finger. It's just... I dunno. I imagine I'm not the only one who feels that way sometimes. BW is great to watch but it doesn't do that for me. SC2 does.
Some people watch the NFL. Some people watch the NBA. Some people watch Premiere League. Some people watch college, some people watch pro. Don't hate.
Sc2 has already been played for more than a year you know. ANd yeah, we're all hoping HotS will be great, but we don't believe in what blizzard has done so far.
Well personally i have no problems with how blizzard is going about this. It seems most people expect blizzard to release new balance patches on a weekly basis. Its not a fast process, it must be tested, and they cant make too many changes at once. Also, as a player, i would be annoyed if every few weeks there was a new balance change and had to learn what all changes and whatnot and how strategies changed. HoTS beta should not be too far away, and i would expect lots of different ideas and testing to go through that. Anyways im rambling off topic now.
Anyways SC2 had some crazy things in it a year ago, it is quite different now.. In the end i just wish people could play the game, watch how it will evolve, and be patient for the changes to arrive, rather than bash blizzard and the game now, as i guarantee they will be great and for the best.
Why should I play and watch a game for what it might become, when I have one that I enjoy much more at the moment ? Chill, if you cast TSL3, I might even tune it to watch it^^
No one is forcing you to watch SC2. It's perfectly fine and respectable for you to play and follow BW nowadays. You are completely entitled to ignoring the SC2 scene entirely and following the BW exclusively. If Blizzard fails SC2, you wouldn't notice a thing, and the status quo would be maintained.
Nevertheless, SC2 does produce some nice matches that are worth checking out from time to time out of curiosity.
Oh I do. What I criticize is is the idea "I watch the game because one day the micro will (might) be good", I find that... especially has there are good arguments saying it probably won't change. But as I said, I'll watch what comes out of the expansions. On the other hand, there have been pretty good reasons given in this thread (in the first few posts following Hot Bid's for instance). I'd like to see those good and entertaining game of sc2,because honestly, trying to download VODs of highly rated games on internet has cost me more annoyance than reward so far :/ But I keep checking...
I do agree that the idea of watching the game based on its potential is a weak argument. However, it's still good to watch matches where that micro potential is reached, like in Foxer vs Kyrix. At this point, cherry picking the best SC2 matches is going to be the best way of enjoying the scene, even though finding VODs is incredibly inconvenient, especially with GOM's strict copyright policy. However, it's those top-rated, entertaining games of SC2, not the average games, that show that there is still a long ways to go before "optimal play" is reached in SC2.
It's a much better idea to watch games that already have good micro rather than trying to watch games hoping to see good micro. As I said before, the best SC2 matches, not the average ones, are the ones which truly show the potential in the game.
On March 10 2011 03:11 Turgid wrote: One barrier of entry here is, of course, that the best SC2 matches cost money. If you have a spare $5, buy the season pass for GSL Team League and check out the finals between Startale and IM. Mainly set 6.
I won't, for other reasons, but I saw that particular match (Squirtle vs MVP isn't it). I guess it's exciting if you watch a lot of sc2 and don't often see macro games on huge map, and for the upset reason, but honestly, I did not think much of that game. I could expand on that if you wan't, but I think the thread is derailed enough already (pm if you want). It was about what was good in sc2, not about negativity... And I already brought enough.
Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion. Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
Not sure if my opinion is unique, but I'm kind of on the line of I prefer to watch and play sc2, but I do believe bw is currently still superior.
I think this has alot to do with the fact that I literally never knew anything about the bw pro-scene (just the fact that there was one, and it wasn't for an fps game ) until I started following sc2 in the beta. I was getting bored of fps games, since I was about as good as you can get without going competitive and I didn't feel the time investment would be worth anything in the long run- then sc2 and the dailies caught my attention. Also, I would have bought sc2 just for nerdness' sake even without knowing of the competitive scene, which is kind of what lead me to teamliquid in the first place.
There is also the fact that I am now an sc2 player, but was never a bw player, unless you count silly ums games I don't know anything about bw strategy, so I would have to rely completely on commentators, and since I would really only want to watch the koreans (well... I don't think there's any other bw to watch left is there?) that makes it incredibly difficult to follow. I don't know what's standard, what's risky, what's turtling, when an expansion is early or late, any timings whatsoever, and lack of game knowledge means anything that's not expressly shown on the main screen is a complete mystery to me- and as such I don't like taking the time to watch bw games even though I do think they are better overall. Because of absolutely limited game knowledge, I have no "oh shit that was awesome!" moments outside of large battles where the crowd is screaming
There is also a matter of aesthetics, when you haven't been following a game all these years it's pretty difficult to just start watching something with such outdated graphics, compounded with the above issues :/
I do agree with all of the OP's points though. There is alot more impressive things going on in bw, and I still don't understand how to efficiently manage 5 bases and 10 control groups of armies and make it look just as fast as sc2. My hope is that sc2 will eventually look more complex than bw to a spectator because they have more apm to multitask attacks/drops without having to worry about hard macroing, individually producing out of 15 barracks and making sure you don't have 50 idle workers and such. Micro does seem very elementary at this point in the game as well, which I think has alot more to do with smarter ai and animations than just not being as good as bw players unfortunately.
On March 09 2011 09:07 Pandain wrote: Very good read. However I disagree(and think some things are misunderstood) with your post. For example, I feel like there are sufficient examples of micro which you outlined which exist in Broodwar. Take the "shuttle juke." To me that doesn't even look that hard. Just click, move, bring corsairs. Sure its cool, but that happens all the time with starcraft, with marines running back to their tank line in order to kill those banelings.
No. It's not easy.
With scourges chasing from behind, you can only turn at a certain angle to avoid the scourges hitting the shuttle from the back.
Though most players don't have to do this, Kal had to avoid the scourges coming in from the right top. Now, if this was the middle of the map, Kal can run away right bottom and keep his shuttle safe. However, there was no chance for Kal to do this as they were on the bottom of the map.
One wrong click in that video and the shuttle have exploded. Kal found the perfect angle to escape those scourges.
And that's exactly why Brood War is dead as far as further growth is concerned. Noone knows any of that unless you have physically played the game, and to a modern gamer that is used to how modern game mechanics work......that doesn't even look remotely difficult. Hence, me watching that same action which might give you chills.....gives me a giant meh. It means nothing to me. Watching someone do a perfect zergling/baneling surround and dropping all the marines with banelings while avoiding marauders is much more exciting and intense to me, because that's the game i understand.
I got into SC/SC2 right when the SC2 first look videos came out, and I started watching a lot of BW matches right then. It was entertaining, and I liked it, but as soon as the SC2 beta came out and people started streaming, and tournaments started going, I immediately jumped to that as it was much clearer what was going on and people were coming up with something new and exciting every single week it seemed. I tried to go back to watching BW, but after watching just a little SC2, i could not go back. I'd never played either, so what you called amazing micro/macro was just "normal" to me. By the same token, what happened in SC2 was "normal" to me, but the level of play quickly started ramping up, and seeing games like Kiwi's amazing 5 blink stalkers vs an entire base game was just amazing and jaw-dropping to me, because noone had really done anything like that before.
It all basically comes down too......what do you feel like following? I tried to get into BW after SC2, but it just didn't click to me. It's just meh. It looks like crap, and I've played too many RTS games to go back to a 1998 UI. SC2 has plenty of drama for me, as well as an untouchable skill ceiling.
I'm also going to say that some of your pure nostalgiac bias shines brightly in this thread. Saying things like you prefer to know less as a spectator.........that knowing everything that is going on is bad. ROFL? Then just turn your video off and listen to the game based on sound. YOu'll hear that intense battle going on, storms going off, units dying, WHO IS GOING TO COME OUT AHEAD??!?!?!? BS. More information is more exciting. It lets you think on the same level as the player.
Edit: also, I will fully agree that SC2 is being played at an extremely crappy level right now. Even watching the "best" the game has to offer, and even with all the advantages of a much better UI, and easier mechanics, they still make an epic ton of mistakes that even I as a casual observer can pick out. So give it more time before trashing it for not being exciting.
P.S. Colossi MUST go.
What. The. FUCK?
Even without the explanation of the AI, its fairly obvious to many people that the trick was hard to do. We're throwing in extra spices in TL because it should be easy for people to understand here.
And why do you think commentators explain stuff during stream?
Want my 100% honest biased opinion?
Spectating in SC2 sucks ass. I watch a match, and then I see that one player is far out ahead in both food and resource count. And then I realize that the user with more minerals and food has shitload of army coming out. I know the other player is going to lose. And then I fall a sleep because watching DB fight is boring as hell since it doesn't involve too much micro to actually battle at 'current' top level.
Compare that to BW: I almost fell over my fucking chair. Three times. All while watching free vs hiya.
Besides, when game is actually played in SC2, you only need to micro the units very well in beginning of the game, or in few matchups such as PvP. My hands are cold as hell when I play about 10~20 matches of SC2. My hands start to sweat when I play one single game of BW.
You wanted a biased opinion? You got one.
Actually, you know what would be fun? Recreate the same move using BW mechanics. See how easy it is. And no, you may not try 234290348239 times and just post: I did it.
EDIT: Your argument can be used in any game. 'I haven't played SC2 so that blink stalker looks normal to me. The SC2 scene is going to die now'
On March 09 2011 08:19 Kipsate wrote: How many times have you heard it? Balls make SC2 unfun to watch etc.
However to understand why you need to understand how the ball actually does this rather then be screamed at by BW fan people.
Simply put, balls mean clumping, clumping means reduced surface area. This affects melee units especially, zerglings have hard time engaging even a ball of stalkers in a good amount. Even if you surround say 12 stalkers with 50 zerglings, not all 50 zerglings can even attack, most of them will run around like idiots tryinig to find a hole to fit in to attack. Sure the zerglings will come out on top, however as you see melee units are much weaker in that aspect compared to Brood War. Because there was no clumping there(save from air clumping like muta's sairs etc) this made zerglings effective and neglected the massive advantage that range gain over melee partially.
Not only Zerglings suffer from this, ranged units actually do too. Units with superior range, such as the Collosus have a easy time shooting with their 9 range from the safety of their ball. However units such as the hydralisks or the roach can hardly reach the collosi, why?Because it is in a ball and is effectivly BLOCKED by stalkers, forcefields(more on this later) and units due to clumping.
This point is flawed, the range advantage is smaller with better pathing since the biggest difference is how easy the melee units have to get to the ranged units. The clumping favors the melee units since you effectively have more space so all bottlenecks are relatively larger.
Why are melee units not used as much? Mostly because zerglings were heavily nerfed, they attack ~80% faster in sc1. Also because the maps are much tighter so even though the clumping alleviates much of the bottlenecking we now have much more bottlenecks favoring ranged units. Lastly air has gotten more dangerous making ranged units more important than before.
I do agree that the idea of watching the game based on its potential is a weak argument.
You must have gotten that from my post somehow, but i have no idea how as I did not that say that at all. sigh
I actually got that from another post that was part of a thread of posts originating from your post (whatever that means lol). I guess the meaning got muddled in there somehow after several iterations of opinions.
But more seriously, for the people who are short on time and patience, watching SC2 hoping to see excellent micro/macro may not be the best way for them to enjoy the game. The game is gravitating towards higher quality matches, but the average match quality isn't up to the standards that the BW enthusiasts are looking for. Why make them watch a live match of MKP hoping for a sight of his marine micro when there is a VOD of MKP vs Kyrix available?
I guess what I'm trying to say, in vain, is that when trying to please SC2 doubters, it's best to show them the best VODs of matches instead of making them watch live matches and risk exposing them to less entertaining games in the hopes that one of the matches has the potential of becoming epic.
I do agree that the idea of watching the game based on its potential is a weak argument.
You must have gotten that from my post somehow, but i have no idea how as I did not that say that at all. sigh
I actually got that from another post that was part of a thread of posts originating from your post (whatever that means lol). I guess the meaning got muddled in there somehow after several iterations of opinions.
But more seriously, for the people who are short on time and patience, watching SC2 hoping to see excellent micro/macro may not be the best way for them to enjoy the game. The game is gravitating towards higher quality matches, but the average match quality isn't up to the standards that the BW enthusiasts are looking for. Why make them watch a live match of MKP hoping for a sight of his marine micro when there is a VOD of MKP vs Kyrix available?
I guess what I'm trying to say, in vain, is that when trying to please SC2 doubters, it's best to show them the best VODs of matches instead of making them watch live matches and risk exposing them to less entertaining games in the hopes that one of the matches has the potential of becoming epic.
Finally someone with a good quality post.
Many people just want to see what the game's capable of, and they always go for the matches. For example (from what I've been hearing), GSTL finals and Flash vs Bisu on HBR during WCG.
TBH, I never expect an exciting match when I watch the streams live for BW, even for a matchup like Flash vs Jaedong. I never did. I just predict who's going to win and see how it turns out.
I don't watch much SC2, but after reading this thread, I tried giving it another go. I went up to the top-righthand side of the page and watched whatever featured SC2 user streams that I could find.
I noticed nothing but One Control Group Syndrome. Some guy was playing a PvT, had expanded, and was defending his expansion with a sentry, three zealots, and two stalkers. He kept all of them selected at once, and the entirety of his micro consisted of right clicking that group to places and casting force fields.
I can't help but think of that one moment of Bisu vs some Terran on Python, where he spawns at 3. The T is trying to scout with an scv, and he repels it outside his natural with a single zealot. Fucking amazing micro. Small battle micro is a good opportunity to let each player's mechanics really shine, and as far as I've seen, no one takes that opportunity in SC2. They always just 1a over everything. The thing is, "1a2a3a4a gg no re" in Brood War was kind of a joke. Protoss actually did quite a bit of micro for things such as push breaking, Sair/Reaver, and such. In SC2, "1a" is not a joke. It's what people actually do.
Also, force fields is the stupidest spell ever. There's absolutely no opportunity for counterplay. The Protoss just casts it without hesitation, and it doesn't matter what the opponent does.
Anyways, yeah, I fell asleep watching SC2.
EDIT: I agree with the post a couple above this one. I am legitimately interested in getting into SC2. It's just that from what I see in these streams, nothing interesting happens. Could someone post a VOD of what they think is the most exciting SC2 game ever?
agree with OP, not going to read many posts since im not going to argue anything out
i dont play either game but the sc2 ball isnt attractive to look at for sure and just makes most battles look boring, but sc2 players probably dont care/are used to it. it does make the unit control much more fluid though, and apparently a lot of sc2 players put value in the fact that sc1 units arent fluid like this(cmon they arent even playing)
i dont really care about how hard it is to do except i want to see stuff die and sc1 fills the screen with blue goo!
also with strategy, they are basically similar, i'm hoping sc2 will become more complex such that i want to watch these games but im tired of watching cheesy games and the game hasnt evolved to that point yet. seriously, i still havent seen stuff pulled off like some other night a few weeks ago, flash vs mind where at a horribly losing disadvantage, flash takes half his army does a drop and snipes minds BC tech thus setting mind back at a position where flash can catch up in BC count and beat him in upgrades where he was losing before and fight back to a win. has something like that ever happened in SC2? i mean its theoretically possible but i just havent seen it.
lastly, tasteless was better during gom intel and i think he knew sc1 better than sc2. i'm kind of saddened that he toned down, became more "professional" (panda bear guy will always be in our memories), and too many cigs
On March 10 2011 04:23 Kukaracha wrote: Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion. Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
Most of the best player in BW have not been high APM monsters, but extremely intelligent players. OOV and savior both had low APM, but were so dominant because of their amazing strategies and game knowledge. The current best player, flash, isn't nearly the most technical player, but has shown incredible game-changing strategies, gamesense, and amazing metagames and mindgames.
People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
PvZ especially wasn't 1a2a3a4a and was a very dynamic matchup in regards to how the army clash worked imo. It wasn't just a hoard of units running into each other at least.
Forcefield actually was one of the most interesting ideas but in practice with smartcast it's just a bit meh really, to me as a spectator at least.
On March 10 2011 04:23 Kukaracha wrote: Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion. Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
Most of the best player in BW have not been high APM monsters, but extremely intelligent players. OOV and savior both had low APM, but were so dominant because of their amazing strategies and game knowledge. The current best player, flash, isn't nearly the most technical player, but has shown incredible game-changing strategies, gamesense, and amazing metagames and mindgames.
People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
If you look at Stork, his APM is in mid 200s. Yet, he's good enough to make it to finals of OSL.
Also, pay attention to what Nada says in this video:
Players with higher APM doesn't always win. It does give advantages though, simply because the player with higher APM can execute what they're thinking at the given moment. Without gamesense, APM is just spamming.
I do agree that the idea of watching the game based on its potential is a weak argument.
You must have gotten that from my post somehow, but i have no idea how as I did not that say that at all. sigh
I actually got that from another post that was part of a thread of posts originating from your post (whatever that means lol). I guess the meaning got muddled in there somehow after several iterations of opinions.
But more seriously, for the people who are short on time and patience, watching SC2 hoping to see excellent micro/macro may not be the best way for them to enjoy the game. The game is gravitating towards higher quality matches, but the average match quality isn't up to the standards that the BW enthusiasts are looking for. Why make them watch a live match of MKP hoping for a sight of his marine micro when there is a VOD of MKP vs Kyrix available?
I guess what I'm trying to say, in vain, is that when trying to please SC2 doubters, it's best to show them the best VODs of matches instead of making them watch live matches and risk exposing them to less entertaining games in the hopes that one of the matches has the potential of becoming epic.
hmmm i would put the word "waiting" instead of "hoping" where you bolded, mainly because i think its only a matter of time before the game gets known more and the pros become better, because lets be honest they still make so many errors per game.
I agree the BW enthusiasts wont be satisfied, as they have have been watching BW for so many years, as it evolved into what it is now.
I may be different than most, but i like watching SC2 and to see first hand how the game is evolving. Matches keep getting better, build orders more timed better, pros are showing better control and strategies. I enjoy wathcing, albeit games are crappy at times, each season of GSL is having more quality matches imo.
Agreed that to please SC2 doubters, show them the best matches, because the game is currently at a state where noone is close to the skill cap and the odds of seeing an amazing game are not as high as in broodwar.
In the end i just dont think people should harass SC2 for some of the reasons they do, because it is still ever so young.
On March 10 2011 05:14 buhhy wrote: People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
I don't think it favours APM over gamesense, I just think that it favours APM. It doesn't make it more important than the rest, but it does make it more important in the end.
And why do we complain about game mechanics... well, I think that it's because APM only requires good fingers. A sport requires a person to push the limits of their muscles and body structure; APM requires a person to push the limits of their fingers.
Chess is a sport, for example; but it's a brain discipline. As a physical discipline, E-sports have very; very little interest.
Comparing Michael Jordan and Flash in terms of speed, strenght, endurance is a joke. What they do are two different things.
On March 10 2011 05:22 supernovamaniac wrote: Yet, please don't try to 'convert' people over to SC2 through this method.
I show people BW matches to show how awesome it is. But I never tell them to switch games; its their personal opinion.
Agreed. Internet arguing can only clear out misconceptions, but rarely does it change opinions, if ever.
I think it's entirely innocent and even productive to share matches that you think are awesome, whether they are from SC2, BW, or maybe even other games.
Enjoy the game you enjoy playing and watching. Share the best moments from the game you enjoy. Don't fight flames with more flames. That's my philosophy with SC2 and BW, both of which I enjoy.
On March 10 2011 05:14 buhhy wrote: People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
I don't think it favours APM over gamesense, I just think that it favours APM. It doesn't make it more important than the rest, but it does make it more important in the end.
And why do we complain about game mechanics... well, I think that it's because APM only requires good fingers. A sport requires a person to push the limits of their muscles and body structure; APM requires a person to push the limits of their fingers.
Chess is a sport, for example; but it's a brain discipline. As a physical discipline, E-sports have very; very little interest.
Comparing Michael Jordan and Flash in terms of speed, strenght, endurance is a joke. What they do are two different things.
Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me.
On March 10 2011 05:14 buhhy wrote: People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
This isn't really right.
Chess has been mentioned, as a game that requires only "game sense" - but time-limited variants of chess place an additional constraint. If you made the time limit on a move 1 second, the "quality" of the moves made would fall significantly (and if you disagree I don't even know what to tell you).
This is because there exists a limit on the capabilities of humans. You can't just reach an infinite level of mechanical skill and focus on strategy at will. If you had a version of broodwar where players had to read and input binary code to do anything, I guarantee you wouldn't see 35 minute macro games. You'd see 6pools, at most, and then the game would die out.
I've said this before, and people have astonishing levels of difficulty with the concept - competitive games are literally reducible to a set of arbitrary constraints. If you ask "but why do you have to dribble in basketball?" nobody can actually answer that beyond "because thems the rules". The question becomes "is this a good rule for competition" - and that is entirely an issue of opinion. Some people like to watch golf, where "game sense" or strategy is almost invisible compared to the mechanical skills, and some like chess with no time limits, where its the reverse. BroodWar is more mechanical than SC2, which means by necessity it has less of a focus on strategy than SC2.
This does not mean that BW has less strategy - the "length" of a game's mechanics/strategy line can differ, and perhaps it is the case that BW has a flat out longer line, and thus has more mechanics AND more strategy.
That kind of conclusion is really really hard to support, though. What is not debatable is that the skillset of a "perfect" BW player is more heavily biased towards mechanics than the skillset of a "perfect" SC2 player. Whether or not this is a good thing is an opinion, nothing more.
On March 10 2011 04:23 Kukaracha wrote: Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion. Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
Most of the best player in BW have not been high APM monsters, but extremely intelligent players. OOV and savior both had low APM, but were so dominant because of their amazing strategies and game knowledge. The current best player, flash, isn't nearly the most technical player, but has shown incredible game-changing strategies, gamesense, and amazing metagames and mindgames.
People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
To add onto this, having APM opens up new strategical opportunities. For instance, corsair reaver is arguably one of the most difficult PvZ openings, but when executed successfully, it can be extremely rewarding. Two hatch mutas lets a zerg harass a terran player in the early game in order to secure map control. Broodwar would not be where it is today strategically if the APM of progamers had not increased.
Actually, I'm not even sure why people bring up the APM argument all the time. One of the main reasons people cite for having automine/MBS in SC2 is because it frees up APM for army control. There's no reason why high APM players wouldn't be able to develop strategies in SC2 as demanding as those in BW in terms of APM and multitasking.
I used to play BW campaign years ago as a kid. Then in late 2009 I came across some videos on YT with Stork and Jaedong and so.. I couldn't believe my eyes that such big armies could be trained and so much stuff could be happening all the game through. So I found TL.net and started following BW competitive scene in SK. Besides a few LAN games just for fun with my friends I was never really a BW player. Then SC2 came out. I was sceptical because those games I watched then weren't very interesting nor eye pleading. I bought WoL nevertheless and play 1v1/2v2/3v3 with friends but after some time it started to be boring. As a casual player I would prefer to play BW over sc2 because units in BW seems as they are more interacting with you and, as if they had a personality. My roommate on the other hand never followed BW scene and is a sc2 fan. Sometimes I watch a game with him but when he is super excited over some action there I just feel like: "well, that was nice but such things are common in BW matches." I don't understand his enthusiasm and he doesn't understand mine. He says: "BW has no future. Why should I watch it?" Overall I prefer BW over sc2 as a spectator because in BW matches, there is more action, I even prefer old BW graphics - that of sc2 seems a bit childish to me. The absence of moving shot in sc2 and clumping of units is so unrealistic, not convincing... Mutas and vikings. Unable to shoot when moving. Sorry but this is ridiculous. Imagine this in "reality". Lastly I don't care that BW is very old. I just chose the better game to follow. PS: Not that I am not going to check sc2 in the future.
Ok about the mechanics. Mechanics do not make the game. They just make it possible to come back from almost any situation. They add variation and dynamics to the game. As a chess player, I know strategy. I like playing chess. I like watching chess. But the games aren't anything as exciting as BW because mechanics make every game completely different. As the mechanical demand is lowered, so does the game variation. I feel that BW hit the sweet spot for mechanical dynamics and challenge.
On March 10 2011 05:14 buhhy wrote: People always have this misconception that BW favors high APM over gamesense and knowledge, it doesn't. Just like in sports, where a certain level of athleticism is a requirement, a certain level of mechanics is required to compete. After that, it's all about strategy. No one complains about needing good cardio and strength to compete in sports, why does anyone complain about requiring mechanics and APM in an ESPORT?
This isn't really right.
Chess has been mentioned, as a game that requires only "game sense" - but time-limited variants of chess place an additional constraint. If you made the time limit on a move 1 second, the "quality" of the moves made would fall significantly (and if you disagree I don't even know what to tell you).
This is because there exists a limit on the capabilities of humans. You can't just reach an infinite level of mechanical skill and focus on strategy at will. If you had a version of broodwar where players had to read and input binary code to do anything, I guarantee you wouldn't see 35 minute macro games. You'd see 6pools, at most, and then the game would die out.
I've said this before, and people have astonishing levels of difficulty with the concept - competitive games are literally reducible to a set of arbitrary constraints. If you ask "but why do you have to dribble in basketball?" nobody can actually answer that beyond "because thems the rules". The question becomes "is this a good rule for competition" - and that is entirely an issue of opinion. Some people like to watch golf, where "game sense" or strategy is almost invisible compared to the mechanical skills, and some like chess with no time limits, where its the reverse. BroodWar is more mechanical than SC2, which means by necessity it has less of a focus on strategy than SC2.
This does not mean that BW has less strategy - the "length" of a game's mechanics/strategy line can differ, and perhaps it is the case that BW has a flat out longer line, and thus has more mechanics AND more strategy.
That kind of conclusion is really really hard to support, though. What is not debatable is that the skillset of a "perfect" BW player is more heavily biased towards mechanics than the skillset of a "perfect" SC2 player. Whether or not this is a good thing is an opinion, nothing more.
6 pools ???? What the hell ? Why ? What makes you think that ? And no there are pretty strong arguments in favor of bw being inherently more strategic, the strongest being that focus becomes another ressource, so you have to choose how to use it. Plus you're thinking as though in every game mechanics+strategy= contant or something, and as though you can draw an axis and put every game on it, which seems... unsupported.
Edit :
On March 10 2011 05:48 Spazer wrote: To add onto this, having APM opens up new strategical opportunities. For instance, corsair reaver is arguably one of the most difficult PvZ openings, but when executed successfully, it can be extremely rewarding. Two hatch mutas lets a zerg harass a terran player in the early game in order to secure map control. Broodwar would not be where it is today strategically if the APM of progamers had not increased.
Actually, I'm not even sure why people bring up the APM argument all the time. One of the main reasons people cite for having automine/MBS in SC2 is because it frees up APM for army control. There's no reason why high APM players wouldn't be able to develop strategies in SC2 as demanding as those in BW in terms of APM and multitasking.
Well, corsair reaver does not ask apm, Stork is one of the best at it, and he is like the slowest progammer around. It requires micro, game sense and a good understanding of the game.
On March 10 2011 05:49 Amanebak wrote: I used to play BW campaign years ago as a kid. Then in late 2009 I came across some videos on YT with Stork and Jaedong and so.. I couldn't believe my eyes that such big armies could be trained and so much stuff could be happening all the game through. So I found TL.net and started following BW competitive scene in SK. Besides a few LAN games just for fun with my friends I was never really a BW player. Then SC2 came out. I was sceptical because those games I watched then weren't very interesting nor eye pleading. I bought WoL nevertheless and play 1v1/2v2/3v3 with friends but after some time it started to be boring. As a casual player I would prefer to play BW over sc2 because units in BW seems as they are more interacting with you and, as if they had a personality. My roommate on the other hand never followed BW scene and is a sc2 fan. Sometimes I watch a game with him but when he is super excited over some action there I just feel like: "well, that was nice but such things are common in BW matches." I don't understand his enthusiasm and he doesn't understand mine. He says: "BW has no future. Why should I watch it?" Overall I prefer BW over sc2 as a spectator because in BW matches, there is more action, I even prefer old BW graphics - that of sc2 seems a bit childish to me. The absence of moving shot in sc2 and clumping of units is so unrealistic, not convincing... Mutas and vikings. Unable to shoot when moving. Sorry but this is ridiculous. Imagine this in "reality". Lastly I don't care that BW is very old. I just chose the better game to follow. PS: Not that I am not going to check sc2 in the future.
Unfortunately, he is probably right, seeing how everything is starting to gear toward the end of BW and it's "oldness"... sigh. That doesn't mean he can't watch it now.
On March 10 2011 05:50 DTK-m2 wrote: Yeah, professional pianists are thoroughly unimpressive. Seriously, fuck that Horowitz guy.
Horowitz? Watch Hamelin or Kissin just someone with actually good technique.
Except Horowitz had a very keen and individual musical mind. Kissin doesn't and Hamelin is very straight laced in comparison. So just like BW, everything doesn't depend on mechanics.
On March 10 2011 05:50 DTK-m2 wrote: Yeah, professional pianists are thoroughly unimpressive. Seriously, fuck that Horowitz guy.
Horowitz? Watch Hamelin or Kissin just someone with actually good technique.
I just mentioned Horowitz because I thought it would be a more familiar name. I bet there are more people who know who Horowitz is than there are who know who Kissin is.
If I could take one thing from brood war, it would be better spacing between units. Shit gets too clumped up, you can't see what's going on, you just cross your fingers. And then maybe they could increase the aoe of some of the spells to compensate for increased space, but I think it'd make the game a lot better.
On March 10 2011 05:50 DTK-m2 wrote: Yeah, professional pianists are thoroughly unimpressive. Seriously, fuck that Horowitz guy.
Horowitz? Watch Hamelin or Kissin just someone with actually good technique.
I just mentioned Horowitz because I thought it would be a more familiar name. I bet there are more people who know who Horowitz is than there are who know who Kissin is.
I give you that. I'm sorry for being a bit of a snob.
On March 10 2011 05:56 corumjhaelen wrote: 6 pools ???? What the hell ? Why ? What makes you think that ?
Because, if you're limited by having to input binary code (and read it) to do anything, the best strategy quickly becomes whichever one you can actually execute. Maybe it wouldn't be 6pools, I dont actually know how many commands are necessary, but it wouldn't be a 35 minute macro game.
[edit] or 4pools, whatever
And no there are pretty strong arguments in favor of bw being inherently more strategic, the strongest being that focus becomes another ressource, so you have to choose how to use it.
That makes strategy less important, because people have finite resources and having to devote more to focusing on mechanics subtracts from the focus you can place on strategic concerns.
Plus you're thinking as though in every game mechanics+strategy= contant or something, and as though you can draw an axis and put every game on it, which seems... unsupported.
Which is precisely why I said that wasn't what I was saying.
On March 10 2011 05:56 corumjhaelen wrote: 6 pools ???? What the hell ? Why ? What makes you think that ?
Because, if you're limited by having to input binary code (and read it) to do anything, the best strategy quickly becomes whichever one you can actually execute. Maybe it wouldn't be 6pools, I dont actually know how many commands are necessary, but it wouldn't be a 35 minute macro game.
And no there are pretty strong arguments in favor of bw being inherently more strategic, the strongest being that focus becomes another ressource, so you have to choose how to use it.
That makes strategy less important, because people have finite resources and having to devote more to focusing on mechanics subtracts from the focus you can place on strategic concerns.
Plus you're thinking as though in every game mechanics+strategy= contant or something, and as though you can draw an axis and put every game on it, which seems... unsupported.
Which is precisely why I said that wasn't what I was saying.
I don't understand what you say at all it seems. For your first point, in this case it does not prove anything at all. You don't seem to understand my second point too, and you contradict yourself in your second and third answer. In bw, when you reach late game, nobody can do everything at once. You can't micro everywhere and macro etc. A great part of strategy becomes deciding which front to micro, and wether you should postpone macroing a bit or devoting your time to harassaing or... This is STRATEGY, and a much more complicated skillset than knowing which unit to build. It explains in great part why Flash has dominated this past year : he is not the fastest, but he knows what he has to do, an so he seldom lose lategame. If apm requirement is too low, choices become a lot easier to make, and thus a you have a diminution of strategy. The question is not should I send this scv to mine. Of course if you can shou should. But can't it wait a bit so that I can perform a more useful action.
On March 10 2011 05:42 floor exercise wrote: Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me.
If you think that piano is a sport then you have a very, very poor mind.
Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite.
So BW and piano have even more in common than I originally thought with that sarcastic response. Big ups to Da Vinci for backing me up, whoever that is
On March 10 2011 05:42 floor exercise wrote: Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me.
If you think that piano is a sport then you have a very, very poor mind.
Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite.
So BW and piano have even more in common than I originally thought with that sarcastic response. Big ups to Da Vinci for backing me up, whoever that is
BW, not only a sport, but also an art form. I like it.
Come on, Leonardo Da Vinci! And I don't think BW is an art; probably better this way seeing what art has become today.
What is important is what is added to finger speed and accuracy. In the case of music, there is an interpretation, there is passion, there is beauty; in the case of BW, there is gamesense, knowledge and cleverness. Finger speed is what allows this, but that only means that you can have many people with speed, but a few who have more than that.
Edit: btw I mean "art" as the most rigorous definition possible (objects held as superior). If you use the term "art" in another way, BW could be "art" as we could could say "art of war" for example.
On March 09 2011 16:17 Morfildur wrote: I only played BW ages ago and never competitively (except for always trying to beat my opponents at our small LAN parties) and i'm just a ~2.9k diamond player, so basically a noob.
I'm mostly a spectator and i actually don't care about mechanics when watching. I want to see stuff die, it's as simple as that. I can appreciate clever drops on multiple locations, but i don't _care_ how hard they are to execute. I want to see strategy and action, not mechanics. Mechanics are boring to watch; Decision making is fun to watch.
I think about 80% of the esports fans will have a similar opinion, no matter what you say... i almost don't even dare to say it, but.... many don't even play SC2 (/SC2 Multiplayer) and never played BW but are still eSports fans and watch games. Yes, you veterans of this forum love your BW and as much as i concerned you can watch it as much as you want, i just don't think it's entertaining... it's an opinion as valid as yours.
Oh... and before i forget, SC2 is _shiny_... LAZERS! EXPLOSION! GREEN BANELING GOO!
If you don't care about the difficulty behind the game and just want to watch stuff die, why not just watch an action movie? I'm sure that is more explosive and shiny than a computer game.
On March 10 2011 04:23 Kukaracha wrote: Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion. Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
If you like intelligence and knowledge so much then you should love BW as its strategic depth keeps getting better and better. Note that many new things have occured since this Ver post and he didn't even touch on zvp/zvz etc.
On September 28 2010 05:46 Ver wrote: SC mapped out? Few innovators/innovations? Are we watching the same games here? The late 2009/2010 season has been one of the most innovative years ever! There's a large amount of exploring left in many of these systems.
For Terran alone (listing general systems, not the absurd amount of variations):
TvZ- Safe 14cc on 2 player maps a dozen different variations of bio -> mech and vice versa with a lot more room for further exploration (this is huge!) Flexible Valkyrie first openings that can transition into many different possibilities A totally new approach vs 2 hatch muta with aggressive marine pushes (changes a lot) 7 Rax (and overlord snipes from it) 4 rax -> triple port wraith 2 rax acad allins 3rd denial vs 3 hatch muta (very unexplored and complex) 2 base allin vs crazy zerg (3 hatch muta to ultra) Revolutionary lategame defense based off of aggressive vessel raids, covering infantry, and massed tanks (probably the biggest change in years along with bio-mech transitions) 12pool Lair with a very different and expansive early/midgame Improvements on overall mech play (several new midgame options) Heavy and consistent Vulture/Valkyrie!? (totally unexplored)
TvP- Many different 3 base timings Many variations in the 2 fact after cc system both from siege expand and from FD 12 Nexus variations and emphasis 1 fact mine double expand in response to 12 Nexus New midgame Carrier transition ideas both before and after arbiters Rax Expand!! (a huge system with tons more exploration but right now there are many variations already)
As long as the pro scene stays alive in courts BW is fine. SC2 is just new (and getting many temporary tournies/players because of this) and people need a break from BW. Give half a year/year and things should be looking better.
A few of the misconceptions that are thrown out that I really dislike:
-BW is stale/not evolving. Blatantly wrong, see Ver's old post (or Harem's right above me) and thats just some of the things that happened in 2010, and 2011 is continuing to show us many innovations and changed as well.
-SC2 doesn't require the same mechanics, therefore there is more room for strategy. First off, one of the great things in my opinion about BW was the extra decision making and strategical element that BW mandated. In other words you had to make a strategical choice about where you wanted to "spend" your APM. Was it best to micro your army? babysit a drop? macro? send probes to mine? Obviously easier mechanics reduces the frequency or difficulty of these choices. Also of relevance is how does less mechanics allow you to do more strategy in the first place?
On March 09 2011 16:17 Morfildur wrote: I only played BW ages ago and never competitively (except for always trying to beat my opponents at our small LAN parties) and i'm just a ~2.9k diamond player, so basically a noob.
I'm mostly a spectator and i actually don't care about mechanics when watching. I want to see stuff die, it's as simple as that. I can appreciate clever drops on multiple locations, but i don't _care_ how hard they are to execute. I want to see strategy and action, not mechanics. Mechanics are boring to watch; Decision making is fun to watch.
I think about 80% of the esports fans will have a similar opinion, no matter what you say.
Maybe, maybe you think this way. But most people don't. If this was true why would people watch and prefer pro sports over colligate level sports, or womens sports. Players in college basketball are capable of all the same things an NBA player can do, dunks, 3 point shots, ball handling, etc. Its the skill of the players doing it that is part of the impressiveness. If you want to see stuff die and thats about it then watching someone who is 3k masters shouldn't really be all that different to you from watching progamers. As a whole most players who are reasonable masters can do the same things the pros can, just not as refined. They can certainly make big armies and clash them together just like any player; they just aren't quite as refined at things like macro, scouting, decison making, etc.
Some things I'd like your thoughts on:
1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
On March 10 2011 11:04 L_Master wrote: 1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
Very simply put: SC2 is more rewarding to play then BW, because the game is more 'sensitive' to what I want it to do. The only reason BW is harder is because, let's face it, parts of the game are essentially 'broken' from a 2011 gaming point of view. I want to play a game where I don't feel like every single unit needs babysitting to perform even the most basic task. Yet in SC2, you can pull off fairly complex builds without trying too hard.
I'm not denying that at some point games are 'too easy' and can't really be played in MP anymore, and for some of the old-skool BW players I think SC2 is already at that point. I can see this happening in SC2 also, especially with some of the current metagame shifts, but until all matchups get 'solved', we aren't there yet as far as I am concerned.
On March 10 2011 11:04 L_Master wrote: 1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
Very simply put: SC2 is more rewarding to play then BW, because the game is more 'sensitive' to what I want it to do.
2 things : -this thread is more about watching than playing -winning at broodwar is one of the most rewarding experience I've had in my life. Just look at this thread : http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=199881 I have not posted in this thread, but I remember clearly my first win against an human (my brother), on Iccup (a ZvP where my opponent raped me with sair reaver on python and decided to transition into carrier), and my first ZvT win two months ago. I can't remember a single game I've won in sc2. Winning a game in BW is amazing.
I agree 100% with the OP and the fact about SC2 spoiling the game for the observers with all the info supplied. Everytime I watched a rep I didn't take note of the stats and info, just the players, after that if I'm more interested I checked stats and FPOV of a particular player.
On March 09 2011 09:22 CodECleaR wrote: ... In sc2, i just macro good and a-move, maybe some ff's and storms thats it. It really makes macro style less fun and almost makes me feel like i should be 4gating in pvp or blink stalker rushing every game if i want that "micro rush" i felt so much in BW ...
Before leaving I was just doing the exact same thing in PvP, microing blink stalkers xD
I like both games (BW more) and I think SC2 still have a long way to go (not bashing) and it is natural, BW has over 10 years after all to get to the point where it is now. While I don't play SC2 right now, I know I'm going to buy the expansions no matter what xD
What I hate, is people bashing BW when they have NEVER played it for as long as the people with the experience to talk about it, you just know when some sucker that was on diapers a decade ago start bashing your +10 year beloved game and actually knows crap about it. On the other hand, those BW fanboys that think they are better than you because you play SC2, to each is own but this people just piss me off.
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. The game is not something so mystic with regards to how it is played. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
The upcoming TSL, with its map pool and playerbase, is going to produce games never before seen in SC2's short history. We've had a small preview of what awaits us through the first GTSL and GOM5 as these tournaments also had the same maps, but TSL has the most refined versions thus far.
I feel we will begin to see what true effect macro maps have on SC2 and if Squirtle vs IMMVP is anything to go by, both SC2 and BW "fans" will be in for a treat.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you.
And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Please don't say how I define myself. Plus I like BW because of its strategy, difficulty just comes with the fact that a game is played strategically. Plus, I definitely, like most BW fans, play more than I watch and its just as fun so please don't say we don't even play.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you.
And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
I knew that the word would be misunderstood. I will edit the post now to clarify it.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Please don't say how I define myself. Plus I like BW because of its strategy, difficulty just comes with the fact that a game is played strategically. Plus, I definitely, like most BW fans, play more than I watch and its just as fun so please don't say we don't even play.
I didn't say you guys don't play. I just said no matter how well you can play, there's quite a high chance you can't pull of something that top players can do. This in my opinion, puts too much emphasis on spectating and not playing. Also, most BW fans say that they like it because the game is harder to play mechanically.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you.
And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
There's tons of people who want to be good even at SC2, a game universally acknowledge to be easier than BW, and they aren't. They try really really hard, be it to get out of bronze or to reach the highest levels, but they peak, because they don't have it. There's plenty of athletes that never reach the highest level of competition, it's not because they didn't try as hard, it's because they just plain aren't as good.
Not everyone can be good at sports, or video games, or a lot of things in life. What makes you an expert on the things other people are capable of, anyway?
I see tons of people who try and fail at all sorts of things throughout their lives. Video games require a certain amount of hand eye coordination, a certain thought process to be good at, etc. How can you definitively say that every single human being has that exact same capacity to perform? The "anyone can do it" mentality is really absurd to me. It usually always boils down to "I can do that.. if I wanted" which is usually always false but it at least makes sense, it's very common to have an inflated sense of self.
People aren't equal in any facet of life, why would video games be an exception?
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Worst generalization in the whole thread.
We discuss a lot about the pro scene because its very active. That doesn't mean that we don't have discussions on individual member's plays. It just got toned down because most people moved to SC2.
Nicely written OP. I like both SC2 and BW for reference.
Although I really wish SC2 fanboys would be a little more respectful and a little less ignorant of BW. The BW community really is what made sc2 where it is right now...BW was and still is the original esport. Players who only play sc2 should be aware of this.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Lol yikes...
I've heard a lot of noobie statements, but that right there might be the noobiest/most ignorant of them all. Keep in mind bud that the majority of top level players, a very HIGH majority, all played BW for years. People like incontrol and idra didn't just get good because they started playing SC2 during the beta...it's because they have been playing competitive BW since before most of us have even heard of it.
sometimes i play sc2. i only play sc2 because i can win at it while screwing around, whereas bw is extremely difficult to win and is quite depressing.
on mechanics: as a spectator, i don't really care about apm, just like i don't really care about 40-yard-dash times in the nfl. the bottom line is, they need to do what they do to win.
when i see a templar drop and a double storm in the same location, i think "oh man, he messed that one up." i don't think "well, if the game had smartcast, this game would be over."
it's like watching soccer and thinking "man, he could've just picked up the ball with his hands and thrown it in." mechanics are like rules, just part of the game.
mechanics should be nearly invisible to the viewer, or at the very least they don't have to be broken down. i don't need someone to tell me how usain bolt's foot angle and stride length are what him fast. that's invisible to me. even at the basic level, the shuttle juke was cool. someone telling me about angles and timing... eh, yea that's cool i guess, but the cool part is that his ship didn't blow up.
a lot of what's attractive about BW is that I would never be able to pull some of it off, not even just in a mechanical sense. flash vs. bisu mine clearing is insane, yet very basic and easy to understand. i feel like if you gave me that situation 100 times, i would fail it all 100 times. on the other hand, with SC2, i've never felt like any of it was really difficult to do. i've never watched a video and thought that it was beyond my level.
what about that video where the guy was talking about how flash left two tanks behind for defense during a vulture harrass and he got off the couch because he was so impressed? no mechanics mentioned at all.
watching giant armies fight each other isn't really impressive at all, but that's what sc2 tends to come down to. whether it's a mechanical issue or how the game works is besides the point; it's just boring as it is.
since i'm an 08'er, i didn't watch old BW. in fact, old BW makes me fall asleep (as does some modern BW). i didn't even watch savior in his prime, but when i watch his games back then, they look clunky and messy compared to modern BW games by people not named jaehoon. so even then, i wasn't always a fan of BW.
whether sc2 gets to that level, time will tell. but as of right now i can say that sc2, for me, is quite boring to watch. and since i have no plans to become pro at sc2 and i only want to be entertained, there is no reason for me to watch sc2.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote: Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you.
And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
There's tons of people who want to be good even at SC2, a game universally acknowledge to be easier than BW, and they aren't. They try really really hard, be it to get out of bronze or to reach the highest levels, but they peak, because they don't have it. There's plenty of athletes that never reach the highest level of competition, it's not because they didn't try as hard, it's because they just plain aren't as good.
Not everyone can be good at sports, or video games, or a lot of things in life. What makes you an expert on the things other people are capable of, anyway?
I see tons of people who try and fail at all sorts of things throughout their lives. Video games require a certain amount of hand eye coordination, a certain thought process to be good at, etc. How can you definitively say that every single human being has that exact same capacity to perform? The "anyone can do it" mentality is really absurd to me. It usually always boils down to "I can do that.. if I wanted" which is usually always false but it at least makes sense, it's very common to have an inflated sense of self.
People aren't equal in any facet of life, why would video games be an exception?
Have you ever coached anybody or taught somebody a skill(s) and knowledge over a period of at least a few months?
Maybe everybody doesn't have the talent to get to the highest levels, but just being "good", is a different status, excepting those who are literally crippled.
Honestly I completely agree with you. The problem with easier mechanics in SC2 is that everyone can feel like they're at a similar level to the pros. The major difference between the average SC2 enthusiast and a pro is the amount of practice and determination put into the game in order to learn crucial timings and unit combinations at the right time through so much experience. It's game sense and strategic depth / decision making that makes SC2 interesting.
No longer are we amazed at watching an SC2 game because 'omg his macro is so good, hes pumping out drones from 5 bases and spreading his mutas vs mass corsair while fending off a dt drop'. These days we are impressed by watching SC2 pros because of the strategies, the builds, the timings and unit combinations MUCH more so than the micro and macro aspect of BW that many BW fans still admire.
But the reason I'm still behind SC2 is because I know that as the game becomes more and more developed we will see perfection and notice more little details coming out of each players play. Compare the state of the game now to what it was at the end of beta. It's looking more like BW everyday.
SC2 is it's own game and I think if you want to like it you're going to have to appreciate it for that. It really does not look like BW at all. I watched July vs Nada today in the GSL just to see what the game looks like now, and it was somewhat interesting... but by set 3 I was beginning to see the game doesn't have the dynamics or demands that made me like BW. Then I watched a normal proleague series and I realised just how completely different the games are. It doesn't mean anything if I tell you that I like BW better, but I think to say SC2 is looking more like BW everyday is complete falsehood. SC2 will never look like BW. Two of the greatest BW players ever couldn't make it look like BW, it just didn't have the right gameplay. I don't think Blizzard is trying to make another BW either, so don't expect the expansions to perform that function.
No matter how much Tastosis say that they think SC2 is gaining some of the depth SC2 had, that is just their nostalgia for BW and what they miss about it. What they call elements of BW coming out in SC2 are elements all RTS games have. What separates BW from all other RTS games is not coming thru in SC2, and I think people should begin acknowledging that. SC2 has to do its own thing to separate itself from other RTS. The creep spread mechanic is about the only thing I see that's especially interesting in SC2. Everything else is pretty cliche RTS stuff as far as I can tell.
(Right now BW is looking pretty stable to me, so I am really not offended by the idea of SC2 becoming a better game. It just seriously needs a good expansion to be anything but an unusually popular RTS).
On March 20 2011 03:08 Chef wrote: SC2 is it's own game and I think if you want to like it you're going to have to appreciate it for that. It really does not look like BW at all. I watched July vs Nada today in the GSL just to see what the game looks like now, and it was somewhat interesting... but by set 3 I was beginning to see the game doesn't have the dynamics or demands that made me like BW. Then I watched a normal proleague series and I realised just how completely different the games are. It doesn't mean anything if I tell you that I like BW better, but I think to say SC2 is looking more like BW everyday is complete falsehood. SC2 will never look like BW. Two of the greatest BW players ever couldn't make it look like BW, it just didn't have the right gameplay. I don't think Blizzard is trying to make another BW either, so don't expect the expansions to perform that function.
No matter how much Tastosis say that they think SC2 is gaining some of the depth SC2 had, that is just their nostalgia for BW and what they miss about it. What they call elements of BW coming out in SC2 are elements all RTS games have. What separates BW from all other RTS games is not coming thru in SC2, and I think people should begin acknowledging that. SC2 has to do its own thing to separate itself from other RTS. The creep spread mechanic is about the only thing I see that's especially interesting in SC2. Everything else is pretty cliche RTS stuff as far as I can tell.
(Right now BW is looking pretty stable to me, so I am really not offended by the idea of SC2 becoming a better game. It just seriously needs a good expansion to be anything but an unusually popular RTS).
I agree BW and Sc2 are both completely different games. They should only be compared because its the sequel. Comparing the two game's game play is quite different.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5xyj8.jpg)
and some games just have these endless moments of "OMG WILL THAT WORK!?!?!?!?"
