On September 30 2010 00:28 NukeTheBunnys wrote: First I wanna say that BW has an amazing proscene in Korea and I hope it never dies. I think a lot of what you have to say is very valid.
That being said, BW has little to no proscene outside Korea, and it never will have one. This is because the sponsors look at it from an uninformed outsider perspective, see a 12 year old game with shitty graphics and are not impressed. They also think that a 12 year old game will not be popular, and they are right. There is a small, but very devoted core of people outside Korea following the proscene. Sponsors do like devoted followers, because they will tune in week after week, but they don't like small numbers.
Starcraft 2 has a chance of getting much larger then SC1 ever was in the US. Its new, and its shiny so lots of people are playing it. This leads to higher viewer numbers which makes sponsors more interested. More sponsors = bigger prize pools, bigger tournaments, and more advertising for the tournaments which in turn leads to more sponsors.
As for the comments about BW taking more skill, and SC2 being casual, I agree that entering SC2 is much less intimidating. The interface automates a lot of the things you had to do manually in SC1. Even so many people find multiplayer for SC2 very intimidating. I have heard plenty of people say they loved the campaign, and then went online got roflstomped and got turned off from multi-player. So while for someone who has played BW for the past 10 years yeah its a lot easier, but for your average person on the street its still rocket science. For esports I think having the game easier to get into is a good thing. It allows more people to play the game and understand it, and that makes watching it much more entertaining.
As for the pro level I don't think we are anywhere near the skillcap of SC2 yet and there are 2 more expansions to come, so anything could happen. I think this is one place where the "sc2 is a still a baby" comments is actually valid. The game is developing quite rapidly, and we really need to wait to see where it goes, but I know I am already amazed when I watch the finals of SC2 tourneys, and have seen some pretty big innovations in play and amazing micro and Im looking forward to see what is done in the coming years.
tl;dr SC2 has a better chance of making it in the west then BW for many reasons, and I hope BW keeps going strong along side SC2
BW never had a scene outside of korea that was professional in the sense of korean e-sports because THE FREAKING WESTERN CITIZENS DON'T CARE FOR RTS. we are more obsessed wiht WoW and counterstrike, halo and other garbage games before BW. ppl would rather invest in FREAKING GUITAR HERO before they invest in a RTS game. SC2 is building off the hype of how great a game BW was, but the fact of the matter remains, BW is still a much better game. why try to kill the more mature scene that keeps interest alive in the starcraft universe just because you think BW has outdated graphics? gameplay wise, it is the best in the fucking world.
i hate all these new people. all they do is harp on how good the graphics are for new games. but when i play them, they have complete garbage gameplay but sick graphics. i think i speak for most ppl on these forums, gameplay is much more important than graphics.
i hate this obsession with aesthetics in games. if you want to look at beautiful stuff, go to a goddamn museum.
SC2's gameplay is in the complete opposite direction of bad.
I disagree to an extent. I understand that the game is new and its pretty fun, but I just can't see the cookie cutter solid builds coming out like they did in BW. There is such a dynamic nature in SC2 which I blame on two aspects, the first being a system of hard counters, the second being forced macro mechanics.
The way I look at it is like this. I could play Flash//Jaedong in BW 101 times and I sincerely doubt I could even luck out a single win, hell even IdrA when he was at his best I would have a hard time to even take a game from. However with the system of hard counters, I can't honestly see myself getting 100-0'd in SC2 by really any player barring bad luck and I am only a mid range diamond player.
I'll comment on these 2 points.
1) How do you have forced macro mechanics? As opposed to not being forced to doing it manually? The game is infinitely easier in terms of mechanics. However, you have to remember that in a competition, people exploit every single advantage. So when the mechanics are not the things that influence skill, you will see actual strategy take the forefront (rather than the mix of strat and mechanics in BW). Is this better? Who knows. But certainly you will see higher level of strategy just because thats where all the energy of the player will be allocated.
2) Hard counters? Kind of like defilers? I'm not really going to talk about this in detail as much to say that there was plenty of hard counters in BW. The dynamics of the game, however, cleaned them up and made them seem fluent.
Of course you can't take a game off Flash/Jaedong/Idra at his prime in BW. And in 10 years, if Idra and top players still play, you wouldn't take a game off them in SC2 either. I guarantee it. If you say yes, then you are implying that there is a skill ceiling in the game, which there isn't. Its still a real-time strategy.
The problem is, even if both SC2 and BW both survive and create a world wide eSports scene they will still die out in a short time compared to physical sports. BW already has problems with Windows 7, there's a good chance that the next windows OS will have even worse compatability, so even in the event that BW survives, in about 10 years or so there's likely not to be many decent PCs that can run it. In 10-15 years we may see a similar thing happening with SC2, and unless the software companies try to assure compatability for these games then they're not going to last as long as any real sport does, eventually we'll have to move on to SC3 or something else, even if it sucks compared.
tbh if we really want BW and SC2 to survive for a decent length of time we need a video game dedicated OS that will continue to have support for ALL desktop computer games with every update released. maybe like a version of linux that doesn't have such bad support for video games xD.
I disagree to an extent. I understand that the game is new and its pretty fun, but I just can't see the cookie cutter solid builds coming out like they did in BW. There is such a dynamic nature in SC2 which I blame on two aspects, the first being a system of hard counters, the second being forced macro mechanics. A solid macro foundation in BW is what usually made a players very consistent. Pusan would be a great example of that, the guy would flood Terran's with mass zealot/goon and win just because of how incredible his macro was. Imagine trying to go mass stalker/zealot in any single match up. They get ridiculously hard counter by so many things. It makes SC2 very decision/build/strategy based which isn't terrible it just makes it more inclined to be a rock/paper/scissors game.
I think your analysis is off. Protoss was the only race that could mass basic units like that, Z was heavily reliant on their lair units and T needed vessels (TvZ) or mech (TvP). This is because their basic units get, as you put it "ridiculously hard countered by so many things." And even P really had to get templar or air tech to survive lategame.
The SC2 equivalent is terran bio, which people whine about endlessly. Just like P, you mass basic units and can win with them, but it's normal to get tech unit support as the game goes on.
On October 18 2010 19:38 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Now when we look at macro mechanics I would prefer to focus on the match up of PvZ, namely warp gates vs larva injection. The dynamic is very very interesting in my opinion. A protoss does have other viable options besides a 4 gate however none are as strong for a few reasons. 4 gate gives a protoss player the initiative and forces a zerg to play on the defensive, what this means is that you CONTROL how he spends his larva. The zerg COULD get drone but they he risks getting over run, so you are forcing him to make units because of your constant pressure while you are more or less free to expand and get your macro going. The combination of being able to alter your unit composition on the fly with 4 gate makes it incredibly potent as an opening strategy where doing anything else is much less safe.
When we contrast 4gate with other early expansion builds you can see how much more efficient it is. 4 gate sets the game tempo and allows the Protoss to control the flow of the game which makes scouting less necessary. Now with a fast expansion build the Protoss has to CONSTANTLY scout and count drones and try to tell if the Zerg's larva injection is going towards unit production or economic development. The thing is that information becomes expired almost instantly, assuming the Zerg expo's he can switch direction with insane speed and apply pressure which puts a protoss in an overly adaptive situation where if you make one tiny mistake you are fucked. It is an EXTREMELY unforgiving way to play and not really worth the risk since you are not generally gaining an economic advantage, nor are you gaining an initiative. You let the Zerg take control. What actually fucks that match up imo is the fact that warp gates give way too much mobility to a protoss to be ignored, while larva injection allows way too much flexibility meaning if you don't abuse one your opponent will abuse the other and you lose.
If 4gate is the ultimate strategy, than how come FE or robo tech is so common in professional level PvZ? I guarantee it's not because the pros don't know how to 4gate. It's because it transitions terribly into the midgame as you have made a major investment that leaves no money for tech or expo. Therefore, it's really the Z who has control of the game if the push doesn't do severe damage. Your big argument seems to be that if you don't allin your opponent you have to scout them in case they're doing something sneaky. This is different from BW how?
I don't think you understand SC2 well enough to make an analysis.
None of the games on the left side of the column had a serious competitive scene. Of course, very few games ever have a serious competitive scene, and two of your list are pre-expansion-pack while the other two predate E-SPORTS.
Counterstrike is arguably the most competitive FPS, and it had a sequel. I guess you could also point to Quake III ---> Quake IV. Does anyone play Quake IV?
Why not pick something of the same genre?
Because Broodwar is the world's most competitive RTS by a very wide margin, and has been for ten years. If you don't look outside the RTS genre, you have nothing to compare it against. Red Alert? Right...
I disagree to an extent. I understand that the game is new and its pretty fun, but I just can't see the cookie cutter solid builds coming out like they did in BW. There is such a dynamic nature in SC2 which I blame on two aspects, the first being a system of hard counters, the second being forced macro mechanics. A solid macro foundation in BW is what usually made a players very consistent. Pusan would be a great example of that, the guy would flood Terran's with mass zealot/goon and win just because of how incredible his macro was. Imagine trying to go mass stalker/zealot in any single match up. They get ridiculously hard counter by so many things. It makes SC2 very decision/build/strategy based which isn't terrible it just makes it more inclined to be a rock/paper/scissors game.
I think your analysis is off. Protoss was the only race that could mass basic units like that, Z was heavily reliant on their lair units and T needed vessels (TvZ) or mech (TvP). This is because their basic units get, as you put it "ridiculously hard countered by so many things." And even P really had to get templar or air tech to survive lategame.
The SC2 equivalent is terran bio, which people whine about endlessly. Just like P, you mass basic units and can win with them, but it's normal to get tech unit support as the game goes on.
I was referring more so to a stylistic difference that it allowed although I might of gotten slightly off track. ling/hydra marine/med could effectively be massed as well but to further iterate my point I will use a PvP example. I was PvPing vs someone and massed zealot/stalker/HT and maxed out. I literally focused on expo/macro to 3base as fast as possible then A-moving. However immortal/colossus were just too much to handle even though I was literally 60 supply over on my opponent having a few colossus just such a ridiculous difference. When you look at PvZ as well think about ever trying to compete against a mass hydra Zerg and just pumping pure zealot/stalker or something. It just isn't feasible, you NEED colossus. While it may seem stupid to just mass a low tier unit the point is just to illustrate how certain units are way too cost effective against certain units.
On October 18 2010 19:38 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Now when we look at macro mechanics I would prefer to focus on the match up of PvZ, namely warp gates vs larva injection. The dynamic is very very interesting in my opinion. A protoss does have other viable options besides a 4 gate however none are as strong for a few reasons. 4 gate gives a protoss player the initiative and forces a zerg to play on the defensive, what this means is that you CONTROL how he spends his larva. The zerg COULD get drone but they he risks getting over run, so you are forcing him to make units because of your constant pressure while you are more or less free to expand and get your macro going. The combination of being able to alter your unit composition on the fly with 4 gate makes it incredibly potent as an opening strategy where doing anything else is much less safe.
When we contrast 4gate with other early expansion builds you can see how much more efficient it is. 4 gate sets the game tempo and allows the Protoss to control the flow of the game which makes scouting less necessary. Now with a fast expansion build the Protoss has to CONSTANTLY scout and count drones and try to tell if the Zerg's larva injection is going towards unit production or economic development. The thing is that information becomes expired almost instantly, assuming the Zerg expo's he can switch direction with insane speed and apply pressure which puts a protoss in an overly adaptive situation where if you make one tiny mistake you are fucked. It is an EXTREMELY unforgiving way to play and not really worth the risk since you are not generally gaining an economic advantage, nor are you gaining an initiative. You let the Zerg take control. What actually fucks that match up imo is the fact that warp gates give way too much mobility to a protoss to be ignored, while larva injection allows way too much flexibility meaning if you don't abuse one your opponent will abuse the other and you lose.
If 4gate is the ultimate strategy, than how come FE or robo tech is so common in professional level PvZ? I guarantee it's not because the pros don't know how to 4gate. It's because it transitions terribly into the midgame as you have made a major investment that leaves no money for tech or expo. Therefore, it's really the Z who has control of the game if the push doesn't do severe damage. Your big argument seems to be that if you don't allin your opponent you have to scout them in case they're doing something sneaky. This is different from BW how?
I don't think you understand SC2 well enough to make an analysis.[/QUOTE] My main argument was that it is stronger than it should be. I stated how alternative builds are viable but leave much more holes to be exploited and aren't generally worth the risk. If you go on the liquipedia page for PvZ FE builds it lists their weaknesses as 1. 3 base macro. and 2. Aggressive builds.
Scouting in Sc2 is much harder plus the information doesn't remain as reliable for as long because larva injection literally adds another 8 units to either your economy or your attacking force. That is the point I was making with the dynamic difference. A Zerg can choose to balance economy and army or it can go completely in one direction or the other in such a dramatic fashion which makes it incredibly effective against a Protoss who skimps on a cannon or makes one too many.
Larva respawns at the same rate as it did in BW just around every 30 seconds another 4-8 larva also enter the mix as well.
Chess is a far, FAR more complex game than broodwar is (well, for a human brain at least). If you say otherwise you just do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Same thing goes for real sport, its enormously more physically demanding than any video game. Thus, if esport fails to be on-par with the real sports/games, I can't see how you put so much value in it.
I casually follow the scene since 2001 (hell I even played at the same "pc bang" than elky, in Paris), but I would never compare bw with anything else than an other video game.
On October 19 2010 18:33 Burban wrote: Chess is a far, FAR more complex game than broodwar is (well, for a human brain at least). If you say otherwise you just do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Same thing goes for real sport, its enormously more physically demanding than any video game. Thus, if esport fails to be on-par with the real sports/games, I can't see how you put so much value in it.
I casually follow the scene since 2001 (hell I even played at the same "pc bang" than elky, in Paris), but I would never compare bw with anything else than an other video game.
On October 19 2010 18:33 Burban wrote: Chess is a far, FAR more complex game than broodwar is (well, for a human brain at least). If you say otherwise you just do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Same thing goes for real sport, its enormously more physically demanding than any video game. Thus, if esport fails to be on-par with the real sports/games, I can't see how you put so much value in it.
I casually follow the scene since 2001 (hell I even played at the same "pc bang" than elky, in Paris), but I would never compare bw with anything else than an other video game.
On September 29 2010 17:31 Diminotoor wrote: People who are saying stop comparing eSports to normal physical sports:
If you can't understand the similarities in terms of contracts, teams, professional teams, managers, media, drafts, mandatory daily practice to keep on top, etc, then there's no reason for you to respond. I hate having to explain things about myself (irl) to an online forum that basically could just say "I don't believe you" and there's nothing you can do about it because you simply don't care enough to push it farther with lolonlinechat.
I have been a real athlete my entire life. I started training in Tae-Kwon-Do Gukaewon method when I was 6 years old, studied Dragon Shaolin for 4 years, and then Wing Chun for the last 2 (until present day). I did professional competition for 11 years. I was crowned regionals champion 8 times, world champion 2 times, and I've fought before the Grand Master Yip Chun. I'm currently involved with film and trying to become an action star in USA, and I practice and work out every single day to keep myself up to snuff. Coming from someone with THIS MUCH of an athletic background (and this is only my martial arts aspect, I can go much much farther), I see similarities that can be drawn between the two. Whenever you go into a "professional"-ANYTHING, your life pretty much becomes that thing. Whether its a sport, esport, career path, life ambition, etc, the same elements exist for both.
Do I think that there are differences? Abso-freakin-lutely. Do I also think that similarities can be drawn to many like elements? Again, the answer is Abso-freakin-lutely. The main one being that a game can continue to evolve and grow over time. This is incredibly apparent in what we would call "normal sports" since the games have been around for so long. This is only just NOW starting to become apparent in eSport games. Go back 50 to 100 years in any sport existing on the planet. I guarantee you it wasn't played the same back then the way it is now. Is it RADICALLY different? No, you just apply the new rules or playing styles to achieve the same end (to win). The exact same thing exists for eSport gaming.
One world is physically demanding, time-demanding, and dominant world-wide. The other world is a new realm of mentally demanding, time-demanding, and not-so-dominant-yet world-wide. Our job as members of this community is to continue to support the scene, and help it to grow and evolve into something long-lasting. I want to see both Sports and E-Sports making it happen alongside each other. I don't see how adding career paths world-wide could really turn out to be so bad.
Ok, I dont think most people are saying LITERALLY that Sports and E-Sports shouldnt be compared. I think most people are saying that theres something in Sports that E-Sports is missing, namely the intense physical aspect.
You draw a contrast in that Sports is very physically demanding while E-Sports is very mentally demanding, but aren't Sports pretty mentally demanding too? Tell me, when you competed in Tae Kwon Do, werent you racking your brains within each match on what tactics you could use to take your opponent down? Both Sports and E-Sports are very mentally demanding. The difference is that with Sports, you gotta expend all that mental energy WHILE you push yourself physically (and please dont tell me moving your wrist and fingers is as physically taxing as playing a sport).
I bboy in my spare time. When Im just practicing casually, its easier to think of what to do next because im not exhausted physically and I can take my time. When Im battling, its much much harder to think of how to hit the upcoming beats because of all the physical energy Im expending at the same time. It is so much easier to plan ahead and think of what to do next while playing SC because you arent in the middle of a big fight with your opponent most of the time. And even then, its not like youre gasping for air with your whole body sore while youre doing it.
The OP is great. The part about Esports in Korea- and household names, I think... hits the nail on the head. THAT is how it became a cultural phenomenon.
Games like BW produce stars because of the ridiculous skill ceiling. BoxeR, in his prime, was light years ahead of the field. But by today's standards, was very 1 dimensional. OOV and Nada and Savior, Bisu and Flash... over the course of 10 years... are STILL able to rise above the crowd.
That IS an effect of the game. The game allows prodigies to be born because it had so much room for displaying special talent.
Outside of very small circles, there are no household CoD names, or CounterStike names, or Halo names... because the game is limited. People are better than others, and their is a fairly good range of skill... but its nothing compared to BroodWar.
I like the analogy to regular sports. Chess strategy has developed over 100 years, and I like a football analogy because- there is a constant dialogue of strategies that evolves. Certain formations, player packages (4 wide-recievers, 2 running backs, 1 running back) and on defense (nickles, dimes, 3-4 etc etc) keeps the strategies fluid and dynamic. THIS is interesting. Sometimes throwback strategies work, as things evolve... and generally good players/teams are born from a mix of studying old strategy and mixing in some new innovation.
SC2 longevity will be determined by how much it can mimic that fluid strategy/skill dynamic. Weather prodigies can emerge and dominate the scene for even a few months- with superior understanding/execution.
FPS will never have mass appeal for the opposite reason. No one can ever get that far ahead of the curve to dominate, and become iconic. The games are far too narrow to really "push" the human to have to train and become specialized.
Nobody would ever try to change the core gameplay of basketball or baseball but still, both have changed alot over the past 100 years. The clothes changed, the rules changed(increased player safety as an example), the equipment changed... If basketball was a game, certainly it would be called atleast "basketball 13" by now. All those popular sports were greatly polished over the course of their lifetime and they're still being polised even to this day.
Take soccer as an example, they're now trying to implant GPS chips into the balls so they know exactly when a goal is scored. If soccer was a software, you'd have to release an update and it would get a new version number.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the OP but it seemed as if you claimed that all the popular sports of this planet have never undergone any major change.
As a spectator sport, BW is better.
[Citation needed]
I think if you want to compare e-sports to a "real" sport you should pick snooker. In europe, snooker gains popularity as we speak. Snooker is broadcasted daily and the live-events gain more and more genuine spectators despite the fact that 99% of the audience is terrible at it. I could go on and write pages about the comparison of both games but I'll take the tl;dr the conclusion.
The top e-sport players are kids, the rest of the world doesn't care. Also, many players are bad mannered(especially western culture players), have no class, don't dress nice, have no fancy haircuts, are made of only bones, have no communication skills... I'm sorry, it just doesn't appeal to the western world.
While I agree with some of OP's points to an extent, it really doesn't help the credibility of such a movement when you have a thread like this with blatantly fanboy (not to mention prophetic) remarks like "SC2 just doesn't have the potential of Brood War" or "SC2 will never be as big as Brood War". Really? SC2 is less than a year old. Are you really saying back in 1998 people were going "wow, this game is like, unfathomably deep, I can see this becoming a hugely popular esport with a massive competitive scene for 10+ years". If you can see the future as well as you're saying, please give me your contact information and we can work out a business partnership regarding lottery numbers.
OP's point falls short right from the beginning because it makes some highly flawed comparisons. The first comparison is to physical sports. OP makes the highly inaccurate claim that sports (or games, whatever term you want to use) have not changed over the years - this is blatantly false. For instance, here:
On September 29 2010 13:25 funnybananaman wrote: Starcraft isn't just like every other shitty video game, imagine if people came out with a "chess 2" with redesigned pieces and you could move 2 at once and could take back 5 moves per game so it was more open to the casual player. Thats a little bit closer to what were talking about here.
Do you think this following conversation took place in the 1400s? Some guy: You know what? let's make it so that the pawn can move two spaces in its opening move so we can have more dynamic openings, and add a new piece called the queen that can move an infinite number of spaces in every direction. Some other guy: wtf man making the game more open to casual players stop changing my game chess is perfect and we don't need a chess 2 or anything like that don't redesign the pieces man wtf u doing
Chess has undergone innumerable massive changes to the rules and pieces over the centuries, making a stupid blanket analogy like this just shows your lack of research.
Or here:
Is like saying oh yeah baseball had its hundred years now its run its course lets play baseball 2. Rubber ball to make it more accessible to new players so its easier to hit, oh yeah and lets move the home run in 50 yards so there's more action. like, wtf? does that make any sense? If you say "no, but thats totally different baseball is an iconic sport" then you have the wrong perspective about starcraft.
Yeah man, I can just imagine some fools saying this in the 1800s: oh yeah baseball's run its course let's play baseball 2. now you have to tag the runners while holding the ball to get them out instead of just throwing it at them oh yeah let's make the field a little smaller and bring the fences in closer so we can have more home run-play instead of infield-play.
Wow you're right, that's insane, imagine what baseball would be like today if they were crazy enough to implement those changes.
The second comparison is that of Brood War itself right now at this snapshot in time, to SC2 right now in this snapshot in time. You're comparing a 12-year old game to a less than 1 year old game and saying the new game isn't as good or 'real' as the older game because the new game doesn't have the household big names created from the 10+ year old competitive scene that the older game has. Wow, really? That's like saying it's a 5 year old's fault it doesn't know as much advanced quantum physics as a 50-year old physicist, so clearly it's not as intelligent.
The real comparison would be to compare Brood War now to SC2 in 2020, but again, you would need to be the Oracle to make that comparison (and again, if you are, please contact me we can work something out) which is why it's flagrantly stupid to make concrete assertions like "Brood War is the only real Esport". Competitive video games just like physical sports evolve over time and unless you're Nostradamus let's cut short the prophetic remarks about just how deep or competitive a game will ever be. OP makes a few decent points (namely about the comparatively tiny lifespan of competitive video games due to increasingly fast advancements in technology) but unfortunately what I mostly see here is a thread full of fanboys crying "CAASSSSUUUUAAALLLS!!! GRAPHIC WHOOOOREEESS!!", upset that their favorite toy now has a new model that is threatening to take a bigger share of the playground.
On September 29 2010 15:07 Sixer wrote: hopefully in 100 years bw will still be huge in korea, and everyone will go back to wearing spacesuits
I saw this on the first page, and a part of me died. So sad to lose all of those memories. And i feel that with the fall of Jon747, the true death of SC:BW has begun.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1503/michaeljordanxx3.jpg)
