|
First off, this is my first "blog" - I wasn't sure if this would end up being too much of a rant so I figured I'd give it a go and see what I ended up with.
There have been countless threads about whats wrong with SC2 and why BW is so much better. I hope to help reason with people on both sides and draw them to the conclusion that both games are great. I wish I could say arguments for both sides were very intelligent and persuasive, but honestly the majority of both are facepalmingly sad.
I would now like to state that I enjoy watching BOTH a lot. I enjoy the bonjwa players that never lose and ace teams, but I equally (perhaps more) enjoy the players that have ceremonies. And I think its important to recognize the PLEASURE involved in watching both as competitive e-sports. I don't know how I can state this any more clearly than to say I ABSOLUTELY love it when players are cocky, when they preemptively BM/ceremony. I also LOVE it when they have a grand ceremony after winning. The more hilarious/inventive the ceremony the better. I also ADORE cheese. If a player who is a huge underdog (especially in Bo1) cheeses and it is defended by sheer willpower/extraordinary mechanics it is not only inspiring, but orgasmic. I also CRAVE players who are extremely respectful to the highest degree. Any player with a glowing characteristic is enjoyable to watch. And I feel all players in SC:BW and SC2 both Korean and foreign have these qualities.
Now I would like to discuss how BW is a "better" game because it is less volatile in play.
We all know that SC2 is a very young game when compared to BW. BW is over a decade old. It has been around for quite a long time. I hope that is now clear. Some of the most fun players to watch were the ones that came up with new strategies. The people that revolutionized the game. Everyone who's a fan remembers that one time where they saw something that has never been done before and gets chills down their spine when the match up becomes obscenely lopsided until the following week when the strategy has been encountered millions of times on your favorite ladders.
Now imagine a bell curve![[image loading]](http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/images/bell_curve.gif)
On the left are Flash/Bisu/Boxer/etc, on the right are you and I. Statistically (and apparently) there is 1 person who will be the best, 1 unit larger/better/faster than the runners up. There are 2 people that are just below the tip of the iceberg. These 2 are just about as good and will not surprise anyone when they take games off the leader. Then there are 3 more that again are just about as good, but none the less in these magical units are less than the previous. Then it expands to go uphill where more and more are involved. Now you may argue that only 1 mere unit divides these players. But unfortunately for their peers, tournaments are not made up of 6 players that are within the immediate skill level. These tournaments are made up of up and comers, lesser players, players leaving their prime, etc. These are where the 50% sways. That is to say if there was 6 players in the tournament, they would have roughly 50% win/loss (assuming a 100% balanced game) because they are that good. This deviation is apparently several percentage points. Leading to very high percentages (for example 68% - forgive me for not sourcing, this is purely for discussion purposes although I recall something close to this statistic - win percentage).
Now you may be saying to yourself "well obviously, everyone knew this". People ignore the other half of this story. SC2.
Imagine the same bell curve.
However now we do not have these definitive players at the left and the right. You may be saying "well duh, thats why its volatile". This game is new, it has not been out very long. People have not played this game for 10 years. I hope this is now clear. People have been changing their strategies about as often as I change my underwear. Blizzard has been patching the game a healthy amount as well. The game is not 100% balanced. The game is not 100% complete. Now to the important part. SC2 has MUCH MUCH MUCH different mechanics than BW. You may say "are you dumb? split workers, micro small 2+ pronged attacks, macro, ?? profit". Well in this sense, yes its a lot a like, but in SC2 there is a lot more easy things, one big thing for example being rallying and grouping buildings. This makes macro insanely easier. Now you may believe this just lowers the APM required to macro a strong force. But this frees up APM. The game is so new that people are still reacting to NEW situations. The only time people find anything remotely new in BW is when there is a new map, but I HIGHLY doubt there is ever a "new" situation. They have dealt with drops in a million different scenarios. Watched drops in a million more. And then performed their own drops a million further. A lot of APM is budgeted to decision making. Once people are 100% attuned to SC2, I forsee a LOT more APM budgeted to several attacks and defense, resulting in LESS all in attacks, and most important of all LESS ALL INS. There are a lot of differences between SC:BW and SC2, but the fact that things are easier in SC2 does not make it less interesting, it makes more room for vast amounts of small armies being maneuvered in such a way that lead games resembling those of its predecessor.
I feel these 2 standpoints are the most important (entertainment - skill) in having a good opinion of these 2 games as e-sports. I apologize for not editing this all that much, but I believe it is fluent enough to get the points across in a successful manner.
  
|
It pains me to see Boxer grouped with Flash/Bisu when talking about skill >.<.
But yes I agree with most of your points, I really look forward to what sc2 looks like when LotV is done being balanced. Hopefully it has what it takes to match the longevity of bw because honestly I'm already getting bored of it and just watch BW now, instead of watching both (even though I play Sc2 only now, although I do like watching high level zerg sc2 play :3).
|
On May 13 2011 14:59 Sprungjeezy wrote:
Statistically (and apparently) there is 1 person who will be the best, 1 unit larger/better/faster than the runners up. There are 2 people that are just below the tip of the iceberg. These 2 are just about as good and will not surprise anyone when they take games off the leader. Then there are 3 more that again are just about as good, but none the less in these magical units are less than the previous
I hope that's not how you think a normal distribution works 
|
I'm not sure why Boxer wouldn't be with Flash/Bisu? The Emperor isn't a title given to anyone. 2 OSL wins and 1 MSL win, pretty sure he had a pretty solid ELO as well. I also feel he did a LOT for SC with his strategies and ingenuity.
Well it's been awhile since I've taken a statistics class, but I believe the bell curve is for standard deviation (as can be seen in the lovely picture). It isn't based on distribution or random variables. It's 1 average amount of [skill] and then the 2 extremes. I think its a useful tool to get the idea across that a small portion (+2 SD - 1.5%) are better than everyone else. While the next portion are pretty good.
|
On May 13 2011 15:20 Sprungjeezy wrote:
I'm not sure why Boxer wouldn't be with Flash/Bisu? The Emperor isn't a title given to anyone. 2 OSL wins and 1 MSL win, pretty sure he had a pretty solid ELO as well. I also feel he did a LOT for SC with his strategies and ingenuity.
probably because bisu/flash are miles ahead of boxer in terms of absolute skill. boxer certainly did alot for bw, but i feel flash isnt recognised for all the contributions he's made to terran.
anyways bisu is the odd one out. hes the one without an osl lololol
|
On May 13 2011 15:20 Sprungjeezy wrote:
I'm not sure why Boxer wouldn't be with Flash/Bisu? The Emperor isn't a title given to anyone. 2 OSL wins and 1 MSL win, pretty sure he had a pretty solid ELO as well. I also feel he did a LOT for SC with his strategies and ingenuity.
Because Boxer was good when the skill level was lower than it is now. Flash or Bisu would destroy Boxer, even when he was in his prime.
Megaliskuu said it pains him to see them grouped when talking about skill, not when talking about ingenuity.
|
it's better just to not discuss boxer and skill in the same sentence since all resulting sentences are either blasphemous or wrong.
|
I think its fair to compare them to DBZ. BoxeRs power level was 500, which at the time was the highest, but now Flash is over 9000. I also feel that its not fair to compare two players of different eras. I mean how many times does Rocky need to be challenged by an up and comer and then defeat him.
I do however apologize for offending Flash (Clubber Lang's) fans.
edit: fail terms : /
|
On May 13 2011 15:32 Sprungjeezy wrote:
I think its fair to compare them to DBZ. BoxeRs power level was 500, which at the time was the highest, but now Flash is over 9000. I also feel that its not fair to compare two players of different eras. I mean how many times does Rocky need to be challenged by an up and comer and then defeat him.
I do however apologize for offending Flash (Clubber Lang's) fans.
edit: fail terms : /
I'm no fan of scum non swarm players like Flash/Bisu, just saying how it is yo ^^.
|
If i understand your core point correctly, then i can fully agree:
SC2 has no doubt easier mechanics... but this just "shifts" the skill. BW favours mechanical geniuses, SC2 favours the more strategical geniuses - which is not to say that BW requires no strategy, it does, but SC2 does require solid mechanics, too. It's not more or less skill - it's simply a different kind of skill.
It's a paradigm shift that many of the people that were used to the mechanical play do not like, since suddenly the skills they trained for are now less important while other skills, that were previously only secondary skills and not that much in the focus of the training, are now the primary skills. It requires a different mindset.
As IdrA said, you can't out-play an opponent by pure mechanics, you have to out-smart him.
This doesn't mean that any of these games is better or worse, they both require a different skillset and we can both admire the top players of both games for their excellent play and i'm excited to see new strategies develop in SC2 that will show that - while it has easier mechanics - it's not the easier game.
It's a change i personally like because while i'm usually considered quite smart and usually win by out-smarting my opponent in SC2, my hands are also too slow to keep up with BW mechanics.
|
To me, I feel that it is unfair to be comparing both games. SC2 is still quite a new game compared to BW. And moreover, BW is what it is today after many patches and an expansion later.
SC2 on the other hand is still with just one release and 2 expansions to go. To me, I feel that a fair comparison would be after all expansions are released and probably a few more years of competitive refinement.
|
On May 13 2011 15:39 Morfildur wrote:
SC2 favours the more strategical geniuses - which is not to say that BW requires no strategy, it does, but SC2 does require solid mechanics, too. It's not more or less skill - it's simply a different kind of skill.
True, but as SC2 gets more mapped out mechanics will be more important than strategy. As of now we need strategical genius that makes Build Orders and etc rather than strong mechanical players.
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
I'll say it plain. If there was no need to actually choose between those games - there would be no problem. The problem is that SC2 is trying to get the niche that SC:BW now holds. And THEN - the moment of choosing shows itself. I think - why the hell must the better game give its place to a worse game?!?
SC2 hasn't got the potential to reach the heights that BW did. All the talks about the "give it time and then it comes to a change" have little sense - I understand the change of generations, but why in the world would it be necessary if the game of the "older" generation is NOT degradating in any sense? I thought the things that have great and long history are beautiful... And then outta nowhere comes the contender and says you must go away, your time has passed by, I'll take your place! LOL? LOL.
|
Once the game itself has more or less stabilized (maybe with a few more patches, maybe until LotV), that's the point in time that I believe it's fair to compare the two scenes. As you said, the mechanics in SC2 are easier, and with it one advantage of having good mechanical skill is gone. Hence you have to do far more subtle things than simply out-micro/macroing your opponent to win (such as build orders, unit composition - both of which exist in BW but could sometimes be overcome by sheer mechanical skill). For now, it's not that subtle with the all-ins and 1/2-base play. Later on though, when some gifted players shift from BW or a "home-grown" genius will rise in SC2, I think it will be multi-task and tech switching that determines mechanical skill.
|
On May 13 2011 17:42 Caladbolg wrote:
Once the game itself has more or less stabilized (maybe with a few more patches, maybe until LotV), that's the point in time that I believe it's fair to compare the two scenes. As you said, the mechanics in SC2 are easier, and with it one advantage of having good mechanical skill is gone. Hence you have to do far more subtle things than simply out-micro/macroing your opponent to win (such as build orders, unit composition - both of which exist in BW but could sometimes be overcome by sheer mechanical skill). For now, it's not that subtle with the all-ins and 1/2-base play. Later on though, when some gifted players shift from BW or a "home-grown" genius will rise in SC2, I think it will be multi-task and tech switching that determines mechanical skill.
Hi Yu Chao!
|
I like both. I think BW is still a better game to watch in terms of progaming, but that's always going with SC2 being so nwe and still volatile.
The one thing that irks me a bit about SC2 over BW is the volatility. There seems a lot of different ways to die in SC2 and it's harder I've found to get a feel for the game and its builds. I'm sure this will develop though over time.
|
On May 13 2011 17:41 _Quasar_ wrote:
SC2 hasn't got the potential to reach the heights that BW did. All the talks about the "give it time and then it comes to a change" have little sense - I understand the change of generations, but why in the world would it be necessary if the game of the "older" generation is NOT degradating in any sense? I thought the things that have great and long history are beautiful... And then outta nowhere comes the contender and says you must go away, your time has passed by, I'll take your place! LOL? LOL.
This is the ignorant and untrue statement being passed around, why would you state it yet again? The sad part of this is that it makes no sense. I'm unsure if you do not have English as a first language but even if you don't this seems like a very poor attempt to get your thought across. If you aren't just a troll please edit this so I can respond.
|
On May 13 2011 14:59 Sprungjeezy wrote:
The only time people find anything remotely new in BW is when there is a new map, but I HIGHLY doubt there is ever a "new" situation. They have dealt with drops in a million different scenarios. Watched drops in a million more. And then performed their own
You said you enjoy watching both but I find it hard to believe you actually follow BW after reading this. T____T
Does anyone have a link to Ver's list of recent developments?
|
all the posts saying sc2 is as good as original starcraft are saying 'look how good brood war pro scene is now, it has X, Y and Z that makes it exciting to watch and fun to play'. then they speculate 'sc2 has the potential for A, B, and C that, once blizzard finishes patching and releasing expansions, i sure hope will make it into just as great of a game as the original!'.
keep on being hopeful because you have years of expansions to go and money to put in blizzard's pockets, and they're quite happy with the way the game turned out right now so they'll continue to make it in the same style.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
I could write an essay on what is different about Starcraft I and Starcraft II.
Basically, one will never be the other and vice verca, however Starcraft II should learn from BW and adept certain elements that made it great.
(Mahini's post sums it up pretty well)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213083
Either way, Starcraft II will never have the same magic as BW, not with the AI, the graphics, the sound effects etcetera, but we should stop looking for it, it will never be BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
