Everybody should play a little SC2 - Page 2

This always boggles me. What does it mean to be an "ex" player? Will you never play again? Is there something preventing you from just installing either game again? Or do you simply mean that you're currently not in-game. If you want to assume some authority you should describe yourself as a player of both games no?



This is not a disclaimer, it is an introduction.



Really unsure about this sentence. If it's part of the argument it shouldn't be in the introduction plus you should explain it properly. If you put it in like this it puts a very big questionmark on what your stance is. Are you bashing SC2 cause it's easy or are you recommending it because you were able to get these wins?



This is a non-sequitur for the question you posed - or am I misreading it? You're saying that knowledge of Broodwar will enable you to play SC2 well. Well if people would have that as a goal - being able to play SC2 well - they'd already be playing that game. I'll shortly refer to the structure of this, but you need to focus on what the audience you're talking to's goals or wishes are first. Right now you're making the assumption BW players want to be good at SC2 and are assuring them that playing SC2 will be good for them. This makes no sense in terms of trying to convince people.



Don't agree with this. Macro and Micro go hand in hand in both games. This term "macro game" that's been coined doesn't resonate with me at all. People say certain rushes or all-ins don't require macro which is nonsense, especially at the lower levels. Let's look at your argument though, why not extend it and recommend WC3 instead, which focusses on army control even more. Surely people will appreciate the depth of Broodwar even more. And is that really your argument? You think BW players have as a goal to appreciate their own game more and so you recommend SC2 that performs more poorly in the terms of depth so that by comparison they'll like BW more?

Below is quoted the first paragraph of your actual argument - but I strongly feel you should analyze and describe what you're going to do. What are the goals of BW players? What do they enjoy about the game? Why do they play it? Once you've established this, you can argue how SC2, also, will facilitate these goals and wishes. Once you determine what BW players gain from playing BW, you can argue how they will benefit from SC2. Example: they enjoy competitive play, strategic thinking, rts games in general, an active community, being creative with builds, fine tuning their play, etc etc.



First you say limited information and then you give an example in which both players know what the other is doing? The second bolded sentence is bullshit. People don't know they're safe beforehand, they can scout and (take that limited information to) take certain precautions to become safe.



About the first bolded part: I fail to see how one follows from the other. I also don't agree with "fake aggression much easier". I'd like to hear some examples. You're again making the argument that BW players would be good at SC2, which doesn't help your argument. Who do you think your audience is? BW players that are scared to play SC2 cause they're afraid they'll be bad?



My head is full of fuck on this one. Read it aloud to yourself. It contradicts itself or is at the very least paradoxical. Again you need to establish the goal of your audience: if one of the goals is to play a mechanically demanding game than right now you're de-recommending SC2 which is the exact opposite of what you set out to do! I also strongly disagree with the rest. It's bullshit that you know mutas are gonna be at your base at time X. What if he cancels the spire to fake you out and does a 3 hatch ling all-in. You know know, you scout. True for both games. Also both games have instances where your forces can be taken out in a split second if you don't pay attention for too long.




Weird kind of argument. The SC2 game field screen is just as big as the BW one. What I think you -mean- is that in SC2 you can do a lot of stuff in your base blindly because of MBS. (Not sure if this is true - I used to go back to my base a lot but that's because I was used to BW - not sure how other people do it). What you're, then again, propagating is a mechanically less demanding game. Why would this be in favour of your hypothesis?



Couldn't disagree more with the first bold part, especially with the vast increase in game quality we've seen over the last year and a half.
Second line of thought: SC2 has MBU > This puts everything on one screen > If you do this in BW you'll improve.
While I doubt that "improving your BW play" is a major reason for BW players to try out SC2, the reasoning makes no sense cause BW has no MBU. *confused*



The latter is most definitely more important in both games and if there's anything that SC2 doesn't facilitate it's the spreading out of armies.



Disagreed. My personal inclination would be to say that players often base their positioning on unit control rather than map control but that doesn't means it's supposed to be that way - or rather, that that is the optimal way to play. I'd like to hear you explain this statement though. Also don't understand the "due to scale" phrase.



Don't agree with the "much less" and the second bolded part is true for both games. Again about structure, you need to tie this in with what you think would make SC2 a good game for BW players to play. If you think they would benefit or enjoy having to take good care of their forces cause you can get caught off-guard in an instant then point that out.



I actually only skimmed over this last paragraph when I made my post earlier and I have to say I agree with this and would think it a strong argument in favour of your thesis.

And this is where you end. It's cut off not quite mid-sentence but there should be something like a final paragraph in which you sum up OR try to start some kind of discussion. Mostly about structure though: it's unclear what your goals are and you don't set out the reasons of why BW players in particular should be drawn to a game like SC2.

Anyway, hope this is useful in some way.



edit: I just found the mirror thread in the SC2 forum (hadn't seen it yet) and DAMN it does exactly what I said! Look at the first two paragraphs: it introduces what the writer is assuming of his readers and introduces what he thinks is important to them. Completely lacking from the OP of this thread.

edit2: okay read the other thread in full and have some issues there as well but w/e >_>