|
When people describe Starcraft 2, they often compare it to Chess. I've often asked myself whether the comparison is fair, or whether video gamers are just trying to attach themselves to something respected. Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that Starcraft 2 is something like simplified Bullet Chess (1-3 minutes per side).
The Genre Real Time Strategy has always seemed like a misnomer to me. After all, when playing the game at a high level, you rarely think; you simply react. For example, when a good Protoss players scouts his Zerg opponent morphing a Greater Spire, he doesn't ask himself what counters it, he simply tries to get a Mothership.
Additionally, troop movement strategy in RTSs is extremely basic because of how (relatively) mobile the units are. White moving his A2 Pawn one space early on is almost always a tremendous mistake, but Zerg running his Zergling into a corner will often be completely irrelevant because they can move back before the opponent can punish him.
Obviously, an untimed chess game is completely the opposite of the above. Once you go beyond the openings and off the main line, you're constantly thinking, and every move counts. Bullet Chess, however, is a little different. When you only have a few seconds to move, you can't spend time contemplating deeply. To make the right move, you need to memorize lines and apply basic principles.
Still, I don't think it's fair to call Starcraft 2 'Chess on crack.' Imagine that Heart of the Swarm replaces every unit and building in the game. Next, imagine you're magically granted perfect mechanics. Finally, you're pitted against someone who already understand the game on a high level (and who also has perfect mechanics). How long do you think it would take you to compete? Now, (assuming you don't play seriously Chess), how long do you think it would take to compete against Grandmasters at Bullet Chess? My guess is, most people will admit it would take a lot longer to beat the Grandmaster Chess player than the Grandmaster SC2 player.
So, unfortunately, I don't think the usual comparison of SC2 to chess is all that accurate. There are similarities between Bullet Chess and SC2, but SC2 is much simpler.
  
|
United States15275 Posts
SC2 is not like chess at all. Chess is a game of perfect information, SC2 is a game of imperfect information. Chess has pieces with static properties, any SC2 game constantly adds new units throughout the game. Also it is much harder to get to the upper echelon of SC2 and maintain your position as opposed to chess. Competitive SC2 requires a much deeper skill set.
|
The only real connection between the two games is that they require some amount of planning and intelligent response. Hell, SC2 has more in common with American football than it has with chess.
|
well if ur talking about protoss idk. but TvT feels a lot like chess. not exactly tho. but similar. positioning and stuff. 1 fat drop in the main and its a base trade. opponent has sieges at home = checkmate
|
I can't speak for SC2. I guess it is trying to inherit the comparisons that were made to BW many years ago (Chess on Crack, I think that's something Tasteless coined if not just said a lot).
I would say for some players, BW is a lot like Chess. When you focus on unit formation, carefully plan engagements and traps through troop movement, you are playing a game like real-time Chess. It is definitely about strategy. Many wonderful pieces were written utilizing The Art of War to give in game examples of how they would be applied in StarCraft. Some squares are more important to occupy than others in Chess. Some areas of ground are more important to occupy than others in BW. A bad player just sees the distance between his natural and his opponents and sends his troops directly there. A good player knows the importance of holding key areas and bridges in the centre.
However, as BW evolved more and more into the game eventually became in Flash's era, it was less like Chess and more like Go. Territory became a concept that was impossible to ignore in BW. It was not just troop movement, but the positioning of troops that would later help you control expansions and prevent opponent's expansions. If BW in 2001 was like Chess because players were so focused on 1 and 2 base strategies that focused on troop movement/positioning and put economy secondary, then BW in 2010 was more like Go because it focused on the overwhelming strength of territory. In my opinion tho, it combined philosophies from both classic games and created many of its own.
When you really watch a pro BW game and think about every reason a player is doing something (or if you're not very intelligent, you can have Day9 explain it to you in his many BW VODS lol), troop movement is absurdly important, strategy is critical. The strategy of BW is so incredible and developed when you get down to analysing it.
In other words, I think the comparison of BW to Chess, where this idea originated, was not without merit. Whether it translated to SC2 is something I'm probably not in a position to assess.
My guess is, most people will admit it would take a lot longer to beat the Grandmaster Chess player than the Grandmaster SC2 player.
I don't know if that's a good argument though. This shows more that the longer a game has been around, the more fundamentals there are necessary to be proficient. I guess it's okay if all you're saying is that SC2 shouldn't be compared to Chess because what makes Chess what it is, is exactly that history and level of play. Certainly that's how I felt about BW when SC2 first came out.
|
"My guess is, most people will admit it would take a lot longer to beat the Grandmaster Chess player than the Grandmaster SC2 player." It would take a a crap tonne longer to beat a Grandmaster Chess Player. People spend more than 10 years to reach that level. Annoys me that people can make the comparison when it should be compared to more simple board games like Hero Scape or something
|
I once saw someone write on here that SC2 was like trying to play chess and the piano at the same time. I think it's a pretty good summary. Not perfect, but pretty good. I also like this one:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 20 2012 10:08 AgentW wrote:I once saw someone write on here that SC2 was like trying to play chess and the piano at the same time. I think it's a pretty good summary. Not perfect, but pretty good. I also like this one: + Show Spoiler +
tasteless used that analogy a lot when he first started casting
anyway this topic comes up two or three times a year and my stance on it is completely unchanged
to the well initiated of course there are huge differences between chess and starcraft
but if you are trying to explain why you are so obsessed with the game to an older person, who very likely literally couldn't tell you the difference between a game like skyrim and super mario bros., it's an extremely effective analogy
the reason why is that this is all your average person knows about a chess
1) it's a board game with a bunch of medieval soldiers
2) there are very serious tournaments for it and if you are one of the best players in the world you can make a career out of it
so if i know someone has no experience with gaming whatsoever, i tell them starcraft is like chess except instead of knights and kings there's aliens and space marines, and instead of taking turns you have to click the mouse and keyboard as fast humanly possible
i have used the chess analogy on many people in their 40s and 50s up to convincing my 90 year old grandmother that the game was serious business and not just some children's toy
|
On October 20 2012 08:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
SC2 is not like chess at all. Chess is a game of perfect information, SC2 is a game of imperfect information. Chess has pieces with static properties, any SC2 game constantly adds new units throughout the game. Also it is much harder to get to the upper echelon of SC2 and maintain your position as opposed to chess. Competitive SC2 requires a much deeper skill set.
You make an interesting point, but do you really think it's harder to become a top SC2 player than a top Chess player? As I understand it, it takes decades of work or a legitimate genius level IQ to be the best at chess. Do you really think SC2 (or BW) was that difficult?
Considering the smaller talent pool of the SC2, the centuries of development of Chess, and sheer brainpower Chess takes, I think it takes more work to become a top Chess player.
|
On October 20 2012 10:08 AgentW wrote:I once saw someone write on here that SC2 was like trying to play chess and the piano at the same time. I think it's a pretty good summary. Not perfect, but pretty good. I also like this one: + Show Spoiler +
Jinro said that in a Swedish TV-interview once IIRC. And to a degree I agree with that
|
On October 20 2012 15:08 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
SC2 is not like chess at all. Chess is a game of perfect information, SC2 is a game of imperfect information. Chess has pieces with static properties, any SC2 game constantly adds new units throughout the game. Also it is much harder to get to the upper echelon of SC2 and maintain your position as opposed to chess. Competitive SC2 requires a much deeper skill set. You make an interesting point, but do you really think it's harder to become a top SC2 player than a top Chess player? As I understand it, it takes decades of work or a legitimate genius level IQ to be the best at chess. Do you really think SC2 (or BW) was that difficult? Considering the smaller talent pool of the SC2, the centuries of development of Chess, and sheer brainpower Chess takes, I think it takes more work to become a top Chess player.
Yeah dude. Although it would take longer to become a top Chess player, becoming a top BW player would take years. And like Chess, most people simply aren't good enough, no matter how hard they try and how many hours (and years) they put in.
BW is incredibly developed. To imply it is somehow less complex or less difficult than Chess is really selling the game short. - I'm not saying it is as difficult as Chess, but the point that Chess reached it's complexity over centuries sort of makes the comparison to BW (and even moreso to SC2) unfair.
Edit. And obviously there's a physical component that plays a big role in BW (and SC2), but it's mainly the understanding of the game and intense practice that makes a top player. In this regard at least it is similar to Chess.
|
Hello, although i know the basic rules of chess i never really got into it.
I think, like the most of you too, most great games share similarities that make them great.
I myself have no experience with chess, but i am fairly good at go(6dan at tygem) , playing for about a decade, i think what
really is the essence of every enjoyable game is that it should be a process of trial and error. I played ten thousands of
games of go and i am still learning every game new things, i see mistakes and i try to correct them and adapt during the game!
My point is i think this is for me the underlaying problem when compared with sc2, which is also a trial and error experience
but some in my eye small mistakes like your armyball gets fungaled or you dont have key counter units, in my
understanding sc2 is partly a hard countergame like rock paper scissor, some units like colossi broodlord etc need to be
hardcountered by corrupter viking etc. either you have that counter in sufficient number and only that counter ! or you lose,
for me at least that is how i saw it when i still played the game and it was in the long term boring.
Just to compare to go, there are of course a lot known variations, but you have always multipe choices, in regards to
counter i would call it a soft counter system, you can not in most cases make a answer with a variation that will completly
obliterate the enemy but you have the choice to make between several different strategies, this choice is what makes the
game in my opinion in the long term fun.
p.s. I hope i was able to make my point clear and not miss the topic.
|
Starcraft is nothing like chess. They're both strategy games. That's it. I don't get people's obsessions with comparing anything involving strategy with chess.
|
You made your point clear GolemMadness, but do you really don't find it a interesting topic of discussion to talk about
similarities and differences of popular games ? I think it is, although obviously it will have no influence on anything other than
our minds, a very deep and thoughtful subject where, some posts with their perspective alone have already given me some food
for new thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YWnCb.jpg)
