Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
I think there is a lot of evidence in the world to disprove this claim, which, in my opinion, is fairly ignorant [though I'm glad you're aware of elgar and the like].
Beauty and musical inner ear is something that can be trained, modeled after, and more importantly you can be born with it. Are there a lot of robots of music? Yes. This is obvious. Just because some cultures have heavier practice mechanisms does not mean the culture produces inferior musicians, as you seem to want to claim, due to the fact that a guy from Seoul wasn't born in France or whatever.
However, I think that largely, you're incorrect. I don't really feel the need to elaborate on this, so I'm going to drop One name, and let you run with the rest: Van Cliburn. I'm sure you've heard of him, and if you haven't, you really shouldn't be making the claims you're making.
He is an American born pianist. He was taught in the style of Russian Romantics. He played Tchaikovsky better than any Russian in the first ITC judged by Communists [we know the historical tensions here]. No experience with Communism's horrors. None at all.
Are you calling this man a fluke, then? [I understand he's talented, but I'm saying the background can be taught. Yes it's not as good as experiencing the situation, but it still let's people produce powerful performances. And I would wonder if Van Cliburn was Russian, would he be better? I don't think so. Either way, being taught and just saying Asian == Robot Music Man are vastly different things... There is potential in all people who have the zeal and training environment (with talent)]
-----
In regards to this metaphor for Starcraft, it would appear the metaphor kind of holds up. However, I agree with the notion that in today's generation, mechanics [and innovations of generations before this and current] are what dominate the play. Instinct and game sense are the musicians interpretation and breath in the game.
I disagree with saying foreigners are less capable [in your version of the music analogy]. We simply don't have the environment. It's the fact that they have the facility to practice all day, not worry about work or life or whatever, against amazing people for X hours in a day that lets this happen.
How many foreigners play in the NFL versus natural born citizens? Same deal imo. [lol, I know people hate the sports analogy and I'm not a fan either. I hope I'm steering clear from it with this point. Not comparing NFL to Starcraft by skill. Only environment :: love by nation]
On March 05 2009 18:53 Elian wrote: I think there is a lot of evidence in the world to disprove this claim, which, in my opinion, is fairly ignorant [though I'm glad you're aware of elgar and the like].
You don't need to be that condescendant, thanks
Your whole post is a bit annoying as you seem to think I'm wrong anyway and you know much better than me about everything.
Beauty and musical inner ear is something that can be trained, modeled after, and more importantly you can be born with it. Are there a lot of robots of music? Yes. This is obvious. Just because some cultures have heavier practice mechanisms does not mean the culture produces inferior musicians, as you seem to want to claim, due to the fact that a guy from Seoul wasn't born in France or whatever.
You didn't understand. I don't say that korea produce inferior musicians for mechanical reasons or whetever. I say that you canno't play western music as well as someone who has been educated were it has been written. You can't understand really Mozart if you don't know and feel a shitload about Austria, the XVIII century, all the philosophical, cultural and artistic background of his music. Which is very hard being born in Seoul. If not impossible.
However, I think that largely, you're incorrect. I don't really feel the need to elaborate on this, so I'm going to drop One name, and let you run with the rest: Van Cliburn. I'm sure you've heard of him, and if you haven't, you really shouldn't be making the claims you're making.
He is an American born pianist. He was taught in the style of Russian Romantics. He played Tchaikovsky better than any Russian in the first ITC judged by Communists [we know the historical tensions here]. No experience with Communism's horrors. None at all.
Are you calling this man a fluke, then? [I understand he's talented, but I'm saying the background can be taught. Yes it's not as good as experiencing the situation, but it still let's people produce powerful performances. And I would wonder if Van Cliburn was Russian, would he be better? I don't think so. Either way, being taught and just saying Asian == Robot Music Man are vastly different things... There is potential in all people who have the zeal and training environment (with talent)]
I know Van Cliburn. You said yourself he was taught by russian masters. Plus he probably had a very precise idea of russian world and culture. So what?
Ok, it's not a golden rule. You can play amazingly Tchaikovsky and be american. You can play amzingly Mozart and be British. It's not black and white.
But sorry, you can't play Haydn properly if you have never left east asia. Unless you are someone extraordinary. The same way that you cannot play properly chinese traditional music if you don't know China and chinese culture. It's too far culturally. Too far philosophically. Too far.
I don't understand, it's common sense!
In regards to this metaphor for Starcraft, it would appear the metaphor kind of holds up. However, I agree with the notion that in today's generation, mechanics [and innovations of generations before this and current] are what dominate the play. Instinct and game sense are the musicians interpretation and breath in the game.
I disagree with saying foreigners are less capable [in your version of the music analogy]. We simply don't have the environment. It's the fact that they have the facility to practice all day, not worry about work or life or whatever, against amazing people for X hours in a day that lets this happen.
We don't disagree. I've never said the contrary. I would even say that we say exactly the same. TT
People. You can disagree with someone and stay friendly. I've never intend to offend anyone. If I did, my apologies. If not, let's be a bit more civilised in this discussion, plz...
Well, I suppose we're off to the wrong foot so let me apologize. I guess I got heated [even though in no part does your argument actually target me, musically], so, let me start over.
Still, we differ. I think you are underestimating the globalization of music a bit. A century ago, I would agree with you completely, however, I think with the idea that there are so many models for today's music and so many teachers from all across the world celebrating the music of the worlds' people, that I think that so long as the place is cultivated with that knowledge [this includes East Asia, I would say], then it can transfer from master to student. This relationship is so widespread that I think a vast majority of people in different cultures are effected.
In the event that someone was totally unaware of the culture and had a sheet of music from Mozart on the piano they've played, well... yes. I'd imagine they wouldn't capture the appropriate stylings of an era. My argument is these can be taught in the right environment, to all sorts of people.
That's the main reason why I used Van Cliburn as an example [and seriously, if you haven't heard his recording of Piano Concerto No 1 (Tchai), it is amazing! I recommend it.].
At any rate, I apologize for the tone.. you're right, it's not necessary, and really, not how I am. I guess I'm defending the artists who learn enough about an era and use their minds to produce expressive music [or not so much, depending on the era], without necessarily having a taste for it themselves.
You know, the point is that I'm a bit skeptical about globalisation in terms of music (in fact, I'm a bit skeptical about globalisation anyway). For sure, pop music is almost the same all around the world, and it's just a fact that everybody understand tonal music (a century ago, Mozart would have almost just been noise for a random chinese guy).
I believe that compared to fifty years ago, most of today's artist are at best mediocre, including lot of top soloist. The fact is that we are much more ignorant than fifty years ago for everything concerning culture. What someone educated in Seoul can understand of Mozart is not less that what, anyway, most of westerners can also, because we don't have the education anymore necessary to understand it properly neither.
(I'm a bit pessimistic.)
So in a certain extand (due to globalization) and in today's standards (which, artistically are very low), yes, someone coming from a completely different culture can be "good".
But honestly, I mean... Have you listen to Lang Lang, for example? It's so bad that it makes me feel like crying. This guy compleeeetely miss the point. Same for Sarah Chang. Same for Midori... etc etc etc...
You know, I remember Vengerov (that I don't like, but anyway), when he was recording Saint Saens n°3 and Lalo Symphony Espagnole. He was learning French, and was spending most of his tour time in France, cause he thought it was absolutely necessary to make a good recording. I listened to him in Paris and he talked in French to the audience (was dreadfull.) (Well... at the end, the recording is awfull too, but anyway, you got my point.)
I can agree with standards dropping and such, and globalization certainly takes some of the seriousness out of a work. A few days ago I listened to...Shostakovich Waltz No 2 played by.... ugh, I forget his name. It was the happiest recording I've ever heard. It made NO sense to me at all.
I think some musicians simply have the problem with that serious and gravity and treat it as pop [i.e pure mechanics as you describe]...but still I think that many can see past that, or so I hope with a good educational background/attitude. Anyway, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Thanks for the debate
-------
Now back to your regularly scheduled Starcraft Strategy Discussion.
On March 05 2009 19:55 Elian wrote: I can agree with standards dropping and such, and globalization certainly takes some of the seriousness out of a work. A few days ago I listened to...Shostakovich Waltz No 2 played by.... ugh, I forget his name. It was the happiest recording I've ever heard. It made NO sense to me at all.
I think some musicians simply have the problem with that serious and gravity and treat it as pop [i.e pure mechanics as you describe]...but still I think that many can see past that, or so I hope with a good educational background/attitude. Anyway, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Thanks for the debate
-------
Now back to your regularly scheduled Starcraft Strategy Discussion.
Oops I had almsot forgotten that we were in the Strategic forum, on a thread opened by Artosis.
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
Hope it's not too offensive, hu?
Now, there is amazing asian musicians, but most of them have been educated in Europe or States (Yo-yo Ma etc...)
Again, do you think a european guy could match asian musician if he was trying to play there music? Come on... You can't, as a westerner, even appreciate asian traditional music, cause you don't have the cultural and musical references.
There is absolutely nothing racist in what I'm saying. I just think culture is something specific to a place. And that being an artist is much more than playing well an instrument or being inspired. An artist exist in a context.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
Hope it's not too offensive, hu?
Now, there is amazing asian musicians, but most of them have been educated in Europe or States (Yo-yo Ma etc...)
Again, do you think a european guy could match asian musician if he was trying to play there music? Come on... You can't, as a westerner, even appreciate asian traditional music, cause you don't have the cultural and musical references.
There is absolutely nothing racist in what I'm saying. I just think culture is something specific to a place. And that being an artist is much more than playing well an instrument or being inspired. An artist exist in a context.
im not fucking korean.
And? Thanks for your precious addition to the argument.
This whole thing about music I don't really get. As long as you're playing exactly what the sheet of paper says aren't you playing correctly? If you're playing it exactly as it's written isn't that how it was originally played? How does one evoke a different mood when playing the exact same piece of music?
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
On March 06 2009 18:34 nataziel wrote: This whole thing about music I don't really get. As long as you're playing exactly what the sheet of paper says aren't you playing correctly? If you're playing it exactly as it's written isn't that how it was originally played? How does one evoke a different mood when playing the exact same piece of music?
No.
I'll show you:
Three times the same piece. They all do exactly what's written (which is very vague, cuz what is written is very vague: musical notation is a little fragment of all the choices the player do). A violin sound is something incredibly complexe: you have hundred of settings: quality of the tone, speed of the bow, pressure, attack, evolution of the note, vibrato, evolution of the vibrato, intonation, articulation, dynamic, etc etc etc... that's one symbol on the sheet of paper.
Theses three express three different mood, characters, they understand the piece completely differently. The aesthetic and artistic content is completely opposite. But it's the same piece. None of them is wrong. They are all extremely good interpretation. You like or you don't, but you can't say one is less right than the other (although Heifetz is outdated).
An artist is not a robot, that's why you can't have a successfull imitation of an instrumentalist with a computer.
The goal of an artist is not to play perfectly, it's to express what he think is relevant and what he feels and know from the piece of music.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
Oh yeah, mind games of course. I just meant in the context of Strategy. But I consider mind games to be "tactics" that you learn as you get better. Those tactics are in your disposal and can be used whenever.
As for things like mind games, winning mind set, intimidation.. All of these are also very important to competition in any way, and all of these just directly affect your ability to macro/micro/decision making, etc..
As for Strategy though... It's sad to realize but at the same time, it's not too sad. Yes BW is very, very mechanical. A lot of wins are based on a bit of good micro, a good performance in general, good timing... But very little actual "Strategy."
I don't mind it really. I still love what competitive SC is. I still like it's a fantastic skill with such a high ceiling. I also think SC2 will require the same general skill sets, just with slightly less mechanics.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
Oh yeah, mind games of course. I just meant in the context of Strategy. But I consider mind games to be "tactics" that you learn as you get better. Those tactics are in your disposal and can be used whenever.
As for things like mind games, winning mind set, intimidation.. All of these are also very important to competition in any way, and all of these just directly affect your ability to macro/micro/decision making, etc..
As for Strategy though... It's sad to realize but at the same time, it's not too sad. Yes BW is very, very mechanical. A lot of wins are based on a bit of good micro, a good performance in general, good timing... But very little actual "Strategy."
I don't mind it really. I still love what competitive SC is. I still like it's a fantastic skill with such a high ceiling. I also think SC2 will require the same general skill sets, just with slightly less mechanics.
Well, in this case I agree with you completely.
What you are actually saying is that the game became actually mature. Being good is not anymore about having the good idea (wow, nobody ever thought about this sneaky dt rush) and a lot of luck, but rather to have amazing skill, great mind, ability to take decisions and read your opponent's game... and a lot of practice. Somehow it's much more interesting.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
Nintu, I think you are mostly right. Just see if you don't agree with me on this: - Choosing a build order is strategy. - Knowing what to counter a build order is strategy. - Adapting to your opponent is strategy. - Making decisions based on what happens in the game is strategy.
All of this, is part of the mind work you need in order to play good in any level. A player lacking strategy depth can win of course. But will be able to adapt, to improvise, to make good decisions? He can get high on ICCUP you say, but how high?
In the end, I think that we're all saying the same thing. Regards,
this example with music is really really bad and ignorant in my opinion. If you take this serious then of course americans would be the best SC games obvioulsy BroodWar is an American game.
On March 06 2009 22:40 polarwolf wrote: this example with music is really really bad and ignorant in my opinion. If you take this serious then of course americans would be the best SC games obvioulsy BroodWar is an American game.
lol
Read before posting. Your post is irrelevant.
The whole music think was pretty much off-topic. It started when I don't know who said koreans were good in music for the same reasons than in starcraft. Nobody said there were an analogy between the cultural specificities (which imo make the task impossible for purely asian musicians) and starcraft.
That's why I'm scared at Chill's reaction when he'll read the whole thing.
EPT
I guess I got heated [even though in no part does your argument actually target me, musically], so, let me start over.
