|
I've been discussing this with few players on iCCup, because when I say I play both BW and SC2, I generally receive the "F*ck sc2" reply. I want to make this thread so that everyone here can list their pros and cons about BW and SC2.
no flame wars please
Here is what I think of both games
SC2:
+ Match making system
+ User interface
+ Mechanically easier
+ More beginner friendly
- Current balance between races
- Bnet 2.0 lacking (no chat channels, no replay sharing and many other minor details are lacking)
- Terrible ladder maps
- Cliche voice acting for most units
BW:
+ Brilliant balance between races
+ Maps
+ Races more aesthetically distinct from each other when playing (clear units and colours, no such mess as in sc2)
+ Maps
+ Great voice acting
+ Did I say maps?
- Pathing
- Unit control
- The UI needs an upgrade
- Compability problems
Overall I love both games equally, but I want to hear your opinions too. 
|
Croatia9544 Posts
hmm, it'd be a nice experiment to post this same topic in both BW and SC2 section.
As for me, I don't know anything about SC2 so I can list only BW's pros and cons.
And as to keep this post short, I won't even bother with BW pros and only list cons:
- Incompatibility with Windows 7
|
On October 12 2010 03:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
hmm, it'd be a nice experiment to post this same topic in both BW and SC2 section.
As for me, I don't know anything about SC2 so I can list only BW's pros and cons.
And as to keep this post short, I won't even bother with BW pros and only list cons:
- Incompatibility with Windows 7
I'm not sure how many players in the SC2 section are familiar with BW, and I don't feel like spamming...
|
broodwar has better graphics for an esports game, imo.
the ums scene flourishes better in bw, matchmaking is debatable, and sc2 is still quite often blob vs blob.
on that note, i hate win7 
|
In my opinion some of the cons u listed for BW is what makes the game so great.
Oh and lack of chat rooms really suck T_T
|
SC2 is pretty damn easy to play, although bnet sucks and it ruins BW playing ability.
BW, no real problems, except for the tendency of goons to be stupid when it really matters.
Honestly though, 'fuck sc2' is a pretty understandable sentiment. Especially with the Blizz-Kespa shit that's going on.
|
Brood war has a much higher skill level required, is ultimately balanced by over powered units, and the UMS is better along with better Battle.net system. However the automated ladder in sc2 is quite fun and because it is easier and the graphics are so much ebtter.. It's quite a bit funner to actually play. The play level hasn't quite reached broodwar play so as a spectator sport the games aren't quite as interesting but much more so then any other game besides broodwar.
|
I don't like sc2, though I don't see the point stating why, also I don't see the point explaining why i love bw, so I'm just gonna say what i don't like.
I believe siege tank deal too much damage, particularly with the upgrades, it should have been nerf, it would have made players such as Flash, iloveoov or even Nada more interesting to watch and lessen Terran domination.
|
I'd add + for BW that battles last for a perfect amount of time (strikes the middle ground between WC3's long drawn out battles and SC2's 2 second battles) and that the units in BW have much more variation in the way they can be used - that is to say, how many different ways can you use a roach compared to the depth of using a lurker or using MM? Likewise, I find BW much more entertaining because of the depth of the control, in that, for example, mutalisk micro is far better to watch and play with than only the 1a/kite that you can do in SC2.
Also (I know some SC2 player will bring this up), regarding the "lack of creativity" in BW, that's a complete fallacy stemming from the fact SC2 has WILDLY different builds: it's much harder to spot new builds in BW because what changes is the timings of attack; the same will happen with SC2 when builds become standard.
|
On October 12 2010 03:17 Lightwip wrote:
SC2 is pretty damn easy to play, although bnet sucks and it ruins BW playing ability.
BW, no real problems, except for the tendency of goons to be stupid when it really matters.
Honestly though, 'fuck sc2' is a pretty understandable sentiment. Especially with the Blizz-Kespa shit that's going on.
Yeah, I like the conga line AI, but hate the large unit AI (dragoons, goliaths, tanks, sometimes ultras), they tend to get stuck in everything.
In SC2, I hate how easy everything is to do. Everyone and their mothers could kite with EVERY SINGLE UNIT, throw down >9000 storms at once and forcefield an entire army. Instead of respecting the opponent in BW who storms my entire army, kites my MnM with dragoons and snipes my entire mineral line with mutas while losing nothing, I'm left extremely annoyed in SC2 whenever reapers ez kite zealots, when someone throws down 5 storms or when someone forcefields the entire screen. Even when I'm the one doing it.
|
- Current balance between races
- Bnet 2.0 lacking (no chat channels, no replay sharing and many other minor details are lacking)
- Terrible ladder maps
- Cliche voice acting for most units
1) You would have said BW was imbalanced if you saw it 1 patch in. Obviously when comparing games, you have to compare them in the same stage. However, when figuring out how to spend your time, you can't really do that. So yes, BW wins in this department. But give it time.
2) I agree, but there will be chat channels this patch in december.
3) BW had the absolute worst ladder maps in the world. Wait till Korean map makers get started.
4) This point seems so out of place in the grand scheme of things. Also is it cliche because they copied BW?
Just some thoughts, not really arguing either way. But did you really need to mention maps in 3 different points? Its like the most invalid point because the BW maps were horrible. Blood bath anyone?
|
This thread is surely gonna atract some hate from one or other side. You listed pathing and unit control as cons for brood war and i would list that as pros.
BW +
- easy distinguishable graphics makes for great playing experience
- great sounds
- mechanically exhausting and great micro availability
- highly attractive for spectating
- maps variability
BW -
- build orders and strategy set that it is hard to come up with new strategies that won't be beaten by high standard that is set nowadays
- battle net issues (iccup only place where you can play with lan latency)
- no competitive foreign scene anymore
SC2 +
- tournaments and sponsoring = money
- new game so you can come up with your own strategies and experiment a lot
- still in developping stage, expansions will come out
SC2 -
- MBS, automine, smartcasting
- graphics bad for competitive playing
- battle net 2.0
- bad for spectating if you compare to bw
- blob vs blob fights
- sounds
- boring
|
I don't like the graphics in sc2. Not very spectator friendly. There's no sweet micro like in BW, the sc2 engine doesn't allow for it. For good maps to appear in sc2 we first have to get rid of that horrible ladder/custom map sytem
No cons for BW. Well it's fuckn hard but that's what i love about it.
|
On October 12 2010 03:31 mprs wrote:
- Current balance between races
- Bnet 2.0 lacking (no chat channels, no replay sharing and many other minor details are lacking)
- Terrible ladder maps
- Cliche voice acting for most units
1) You would have said BW was imbalanced if you saw it 1 patch in. Obviously when comparing games, you have to compare them in the same stage. However, when figuring out how to spend your time, you can't really do that. So yes, BW wins in this department. But give it time.
2) I agree, but there will be chat channels this patch in december.
3) BW had the absolute worst ladder maps in the world. Wait till Korean map makers get started.
4) This point seems so out of place in the grand scheme of things. Also is it cliche because they copied BW?
Just some thoughts, not really arguing either way. But did you really need to mention maps in 3 different points? Its like the most invalid point because the BW maps were horrible. Blood bath anyone?
I agree, the game is still young, but it is no excuse to exclude these facts. They remain as cons until they are improved.
The whole voice acting thing is pretty subjective, but when I compare them between BW and SC2, I notice the BW ones had much more character input while the SC2 voices remain quite ordinary and "hollywood". That is however, just my opinion and that is why I named this thread "Your pros and cons"
On October 12 2010 03:34 Ricjames wrote:
You listed pathing and unit control as cons for brood war and i would list that as pros.
It depends where we draw the "line", we could make it so that you could only control 1 unit at a time and return each mineral manually, and claim it makes the game more "pro". I feel that the less we allow units to be controlled, the more dexterity the game requires in order to execute your plans, and too much dexterity is not too good either because then the players to win will mostly often be always the ones with huge hand skills, rather than those with good decision making.
On October 12 2010 03:38 Raiden X wrote:
Yeah in SC2 so many aanimations are going on and how things bunch into giant blobs of Death make it less appealing to watch then BW. Don't get me wrong love the graphics.
Just hate how everything just groups in a ball.
In BW the 200 armies seemed massive because they were spread out, but in SC2 they seem so small since the bunch and when they fight all you see in explosions and lasers and you have no clue whats going on
THIS ALSO
|
On October 12 2010 03:31 mprs wrote:
- Current balance between races
- Bnet 2.0 lacking (no chat channels, no replay sharing and many other minor details are lacking)
- Terrible ladder maps
- Cliche voice acting for most units
1) You would have said BW was imbalanced if you saw it 1 patch in. Obviously when comparing games, you have to compare them in the same stage. However, when figuring out how to spend your time, you can't really do that. So yes, BW wins in this department. But give it time.
2) I agree, but there will be chat channels this patch in december.
3) BW had the absolute worst ladder maps in the world. Wait till Korean map makers get started.
4) This point seems so out of place in the grand scheme of things. Also is it cliche because they copied BW?
Just some thoughts, not really arguing either way. But did you really need to mention maps in 3 different points? Its like the most invalid point because the BW maps were horrible. Blood bath anyone?
BW + SC had 4 balance patches in total to get to the point today. Bloodbath is also a terrible example, it spawned a small scene centered around the map.
The sound effects aren't great for clarity in SC2, I have no issues with the voice acting though.
|
On October 12 2010 03:15 seRapH wrote:broodwar has better graphics for an esports game, imo. the ums scene flourishes better in bw, matchmaking is debatable, and sc2 is still quite often blob vs blob. on that note, i hate win7
Yeah in SC2 so many aanimations are going on and how things bunch into giant blobs of Death make it less appealing to watch then BW. Don't get me wrong love the graphics.
Just hate how everything just groups in a ball.
In BW the 200 armies seemed massive because they were spread out, but in SC2 they seem so small since the bunch and when they fight all you see in explosions and lasers and you have no clue whats going on
|
pros for bw:
scourge hiting vessels, (o god love that sound)
hydras, reavers, better maps, iccup ladder system (even though i sucked), i have more fun watching pro sc1 than pro sc2, reavers, archons, reavers
pros for sc2:
prettier, more fun to play because i dont get roflstomped quite as easily, warp prisms, smartcasting makes casters usable for bad people like me, i can try to do less standard strats without being ruined, i dont have to remember ridiculous rules to forge fe lol
|
huh?
on my laptop win 7, starcraft works perfectly fine
|
I honestly don't believe broodwar had any real cons. I honestly don't. I played it for 5-6 years and still play it now occasionally.
SC2 Pros: Can pick up and play pretty much, hard to get rusty even when I haven't played for 2-3 weeks.
Cons: Not nearly as addictive as broodwar, hard to sit down and grind the ladder, espescially with no chat channels or replay sharing.
|
Canada8036 Posts
Pathing in SC2 is greatly improved from BW. There's no disputing that. However, the side effect of this is that everything tends to move around in a ball. In BW, moving units usually travel in a conga line. While this can be annoying as hell sometimes, it actually helps establish a decent concave if you move your units parallel to the opposing army, then attack into them. Still, when transferring probes, I can't help but get annoyed when they run into some odd corner before finally heading to their destination.
It's odd, really. The broken pathing work quite well for BW, but would suck in SC2. Imagine SC2 ultras with BW dragoon AI. Shit would be hilarious.
The UI in BW is quite limited, but overall, it's not bad for the game. Having a limit to the number of units per group stops muta stacks from becoming too stupidly powerful. The lack of smartcast means that casting storm requires more skill, which is good considering its damage output in BW.
I like the graphics in BW better than the graphics SC2, but that might just be nostalgia talking.
|
Where is the LAN the most important thing to have in an e-sport game ?
|
Korea (South)11598 Posts
Pros for BW
+ladder scene
+chatrooms
+defined professional scene
+huge skill curve
+more community oriented
+easily to understand what is going on
+high land advantage
+tricks like stacking mutas, hold lurkers, etc...
+storm drops actually do damage
Cons for BW
-Blizzard doesn't care about the professional scene
-Foreigners suck
-The scene is dying out
Pros for SC2
+Blizzard cares about the ladder, and getting rid of hackers
+Blizzard cares about the professional scene
Cons for SC2
-Noob friendly
-Less of a skill curve, easy for a noob to compete against really good players
-Fog of War (you can see the entire map, even before you scout it)
-Units clump together
-Very flashy/lasers that do little damage
-Less need for really good mechanics (1 or 2 base play is the norm.)
-No chat rooms
-No LAN capability
-Auto-mine / Multiple Building Selection makes it too easy
-No Cross Realm Play
-No Private Ladders
-SC:BW nubs can do well
BroodWar is by far the better game!
|
Almost all of these problems are due to how old BW is and how new SC2 is. Although how bad Bnet2 is is pretty unforgivable
|
I can't stand SC2's graphics, they just look like the shiny new games that come out every other month that never last more than a year. Then again I've always been into more retro-looking or indie games.
That and blobs of zerg on creep just look stupid and indistinguishable from each other.
-Fog of War (you can see the entire map, even before you scout it)
What's wrong with this, exactly?
|
seriously, scbw is better in every way. even the graphics is better for gameplay. I only play sc2 because there is a community developing
|
On October 12 2010 03:56 CaucasianAsian wrote:
Cons for BW
-The scene is dying out
Cons for SC2:
-Noob friendly
Mutually exclusive?
|
On October 12 2010 03:22 paulinepain wrote:
I don't like sc2, though I don't see the point stating why, also I don't see the point explaining why i love bw, so I'm just gonna say what i don't like.
I believe siege tank deal too much damage, particularly with the upgrades, it should have been nerf, it would have made players such as Flash, iloveoov or even Nada more interesting to watch and lessen Terran domination.
I highely doubt that very many people would call Nada boring. The power of the siege tank does no only help defensive late game macro terran, but harass terran (like Fantasy Nada) and aggressive terran (Iris Skyhigh) and timing push terran (Hiya Forgg). This is realy only an argument about tvp becuase the siege tank wasnt used as a bread and butter unit in tvz until flash came along and even with a nerf on the tank, tvt would likely still have the same unit composition. Really, a nerf would probably just make it take longer for terrans to move out due to the fact that their units would suck until a huge mass is accumulated. Harass is good but you can't usually win a full game off of it and timing pushes are sweet so long as your tanks are strong and the protoss is not prepared for timing push.
pros: sc2
campaign cinematics
new terran units
cons: sc2
for some reason boring to watch
noob comentators
pros: sc1
fun
$20
cons: sc1
unapealing to "casual gamers"
no foreign scene at the moment T.T
|
On October 12 2010 03:57 Piy wrote:Almost all of these problems are due to how old BW is and how new SC2 is. Although how bad Bnet2 is is pretty unforgivable
I'd love it if BW is recreated with higher resolution, better sprites, better large unit AI and a better looking UI.
|
imagine a world where SC2 came before the release of BW
now imagine that you played SC2 for about 10 years and then all of sudden BW was released
most of the complaints would be reversed (people would complain that the game was all of sudden too hard, etc.)
I feel like the people complaining about SC2 are the ones who were pretty good at BW, but now since SC2 is more newb friendly, instead of practicing to get into tournaments, they just say "omg that game is too easy, i'm gonna stick to BW"
i guess the point i was trying to make is that there will always be people who don't want to embrace change
the only way you could compare these games if they were released at the same time
|
Pathing and AI can be regarded as cons or pros depending on level of play and what not. But if you say that the terrible pathing BW has is a good thing and allowed for micro, then you can also say the fact that the SC2 AI grouping in a ball allows for micro to spread the units out. So that argument is really moot (sp?)
|
On October 12 2010 03:09 kXn wrote:I've been discussing this with few players on iCCup, because when I say I play both BW and SC2, I generally receive the "F*ck sc2" reply. I want to make this thread so that everyone here can list their pros and cons about BW and SC2. no flame wars pleaseHere is what I think of both games SC2: + Match making system + User interface + Mechanically easier + More beginner friendly - Current balance between races - Bnet 2.0 lacking (no chat channels, no replay sharing and many other minor details are lacking) - Terrible ladder maps - Cliche voice acting for most units BW: + Brilliant balance between races + Maps + Races more aesthetically distinct from each other when playing (clear units and colours, no such mess as in sc2) + Maps + Great voice acting + Did I say maps? - Pathing - Unit control - The UI needs an upgrade - Compability problems Overall I love both games equally, but I want to hear your opinions too.
I wonder where the OPs loyalties lie.
Oh wait, no I don't.
|
On October 12 2010 04:08 awu25 wrote:
imagine a world where SC2 came before the release of BW
now imagine that you played SC2 for about 10 years and then all of sudden BW was released
most of the complaints would be reversed (people would complain that the game was all of sudden too hard, etc.)
I feel like the people complaining about SC2 are the ones who were pretty good at BW, but now since SC2 is more newb friendly, instead of practicing to get into tournaments, they just say "omg that game is too easy, i'm gonna stick to BW"
i guess the point i was trying to make is that there will always be people who don't want to embrace change
the only way you could compare these games if they were released at the same time
That wouldn't have happened since nobody would've sticked with SC2 for so long. T___T Definitely not me (quit beta after a couple of months).
It's not about not embracing change per se - it's about not embracing change for the worse.
|
In a game where you want a unit to go diagonal and it has to make an L shaped path(BW), the pathing is pretty primitive. Not to say it was just poorly programmed, but the game is old, it is just limited.
And BW is not "harder" than SC2, yes you will have more trouble playing on icccup than on bnet but thats because iccup has the people who have been playing BW for 12 years and are for the most part pretty hardcore BW gamers whereas SC2 is new and full of people new to strategy games so youll find it "easier" to win I guess, at least early on. That doesn't make the game itself any easier or harder. The only thing thats easy or hard is your opponent. Take for example chess, the games rules, set up, mechanics etc are rather simple compared to BW or SC2, yet if youre facing bobby fisher the game is not going to be easy.
And if you just simply can't make the argument graphics are better in BW. That argument doesnt even pass the laugh test. You can also modify the graphics in SC2 to make the units more distinguishable and simplistic or make it more realistic and seamless. Just keep in mind SC2 and bnet2.0 are still developing (including the newly announced introduction of chat channels) so people need to be a little less averse to change, alot of BW posters here seem like Luddites and refuse to accept that there could possibly be something more fun or more entertaining than their "perfect BW"
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Bean54 wrote:
And if you just simply can't make the argument graphics are better in BW. That argument doesnt even pass the laugh test. You can also modify the graphics in SC2 to make the units more distinguishable and simplistic or make it more realistic and seamless. Just keep in mind SC2 and bnet2.0 are still developing (including the newly announced introduction of chat channels) so people need to be a little less averse to change, alot of BW posters here seem like Luddites and refuse to accept that there could possibly be something more fun or more entertaining than their "perfect BW"
You can make the argument, rather easily. That the models in SC2 might be shinier and have smaller pixels than the ones in BW is true, but that doesn't make them better. "Better" is a judgement of quality, not quantity, and many of us prefer the look of BW to SC2 even if SC2's graphic are, from a purely technical standpoint, superior. Literally, my first reaction upon seeing footage of SC2 was "God damn those Protoss buildings are ugly as shit," an impression which hasn't changed with time and which makes me have no real interest in SC2.
|
Korea (South)11598 Posts
On October 12 2010 04:28 Bean54 wrote:
In a game where you want a unit to go diagonal and it has to make an L shaped path(BW), the pathing is pretty primitive. Not to say it was just poorly programmed, but the game is old, it is just limited.
And BW is not "harder" than SC2, yes you will have more trouble playing on icccup than on bnet but thats because iccup has the people who have been playing BW for 12 years and are for the most part pretty hardcore BW gamers whereas SC2 is new and full of people new to strategy games so youll find it "easier" to win I guess, at least early on. That doesn't make the game itself any easier or harder. The only thing thats easy or hard is your opponent. Take for example chess, the games rules, set up, mechanics etc are rather simple compared to BW or SC2, yet if youre facing bobby fisher the game is not going to be easy.
And if you just simply can't make the argument graphics are better in BW. That argument doesnt even pass the laugh test. You can also modify the graphics in SC2 to make the units more distinguishable and simplistic or make it more realistic and seamless. Just keep in mind SC2 and bnet2.0 are still developing (including the newly announced introduction of chat channels) so people need to be a little less averse to change, alot of BW posters here seem like Luddites and refuse to accept that there could possibly be something more fun or more entertaining than their "perfect BW"
BW is perfect. if you haven't had the opportunity to play it at a highly competitive level, you are surely missing out!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
pros for BW:
greatest professional esports scene in the world
huge map variety with many new excellent maps being introduced every few months
unbelievably balanced at almost all levels
huge layer of finesse for almost every unit (every unit takes a lot of time to learn how to control optimally)
hard mechanics give a great rewarding feeling for performing well (IE controlling a huge lategame army well or macroing well etc)
ever-evolving metagame with matchups changing a lot every year
beautiful unit designs that interact with other units almost perfectly
cons for BW:
stagnant player base since SC2 beta came out (a bit harder to find games on ICCUP)
flash and jaedong might be too good right now
I dont really think it's that bad since it applies to every race basically equally, but poor pathfinding makes it frustrating for many new players to get into the game (and yea it kinda sucks but then to me that just adds to the fun of the game (must be more careful with unit control on maps where pathfinding bugs out a lot)).
pros for SC2
protoss have a lot of really cool stuff that actually makes them cooler than they were in BW
matchmaking makes it easier to find games
all my friends play it
macro mechanics are generally pretty cool
huge player base and a stupidly large amount of tournaments
cons for SC2
almost all SC2 tournaments suck
no one is good at the game yet and so it's really boring to watch
it seems that 1 out of every 5 SC2 players wants to be a caster and they all suck
no high ground advantage
maps suck
reveal mechanic is still in the game (all CCs get destroyed and then your buildings are revealed)
tons of unbelievably frustrating and stupid unit designs (almost all terran units, mothership, all zerg units except for queen)
almost no notable micro (almost no learning curve for any unit)
allow me to reiterate: they completely assraped everything that i loved about BW Zerg. it's not even close to playing or feeling like the same race
complete lack of all the little micro battles and nuances that made BW so great (scourge vs vessel, lurkerling vs MnM armies, muta harass, reaver/shuttle harass, observer scourging, etc)
I think that's about the gist of it.
|
- The UI needs an upgrade
- Compability problems
- battle net issues (iccup only place where you can play with lan latency)
- no competitive foreign scene anymore
these are all the issues i have with bw, i stopped playing because my new comp is a win7
|
personally, i like bw better.... my comp cant play sc2 on medium without lagging so i run it on low.... looks too cartoony for me..
plus bw is SO balanced.
however, for me: bw is just way more serious and takes more concentration and focus
so for new fun and fresh play i go play some sc2... 2v2s, 3v3s, 4v4s or just for dicking around lol
when im serious i go to ic
|
i dont understand how so many people are saying bw doesnt work with windows 7. I have windows 7 and BW works fine....
|
personally i feel that people are missing out on what a REAL TIME strategy game entails.
yes there is strategy, BUT the other half of the name means that there should be for lack of a better phrase, athletic ability (so long as we are constrained to using physical means to input data: mouse, keyboard). is there no strategy in tennis if not everybody can run as quickly? i will admit that BW is very challenging for me to play (i have never broken 200 apm..), but it is a good balance of physical and mental dexterity.
|
On October 12 2010 04:08 awu25 wrote:
imagine a world where SC2 came before the release of BW
now imagine that you played SC2 for about 10 years and then all of sudden BW was released
most of the complaints would be reversed (people would complain that the game was all of sudden too hard, etc.)
I feel like the people complaining about SC2 are the ones who were pretty good at BW, but now since SC2 is more newb friendly, instead of practicing to get into tournaments, they just say "omg that game is too easy, i'm gonna stick to BW"
i guess the point i was trying to make is that there will always be people who don't want to embrace change
the only way you could compare these games if they were released at the same time
Thats not quite right. Personally, i am absolutely terrible in RTS. I have trouble beating the campaign for SC1, and probably will have trouble doing it for SC2 as well (in Brutal).. I have never played on ICCup. And i still find SC:BW vastly superior compared to SC2.
As a spectator and (very) casual gamer:
BW:
+ Brilliant racial balance AND distinction. No games that i know have managed to achieve this.
+ Exciting procene filled with superhumans.
+ A wide variety of viable strategies. (from 4 pool to 3-hatch-before-pool, and everywhere in between). All of them are equally viable and counters one another.
+ Awesome battle, from Muta/Vulture micro to huge late-game battle. Smashing Tank-line with Zealots, bleeding Zerg out with multi-front attack as SK Terran, good Swarm/Plague + Ultraling attack, etc. All are so much more majestic with flanking and distinctive units fighting over a big battlefield.. (as opposed to SC2 where as many have said, indistinguisable ball vs ball with colorful explosions.. -> one side randomly wins)
+ More demanding on Mechanics. (think 7-8 base July SauronZerg vs 1base Terran in SC2)
+ Units with interesting abilities. Spider Mine, Dark Swarm, Stasis, Irradiate, Muta/Wraith/Vulture patrol-Attack, Muta-Stack, Reaver+Shuttle Micro, Medic Wall, Lockdown, H old Lurker
- Dragoons are retarded.
- Bisu wasnt doing well enough recently.
SC2:
+ Noob-Friendly (as a player i suck and need it :p)
+ Banelings are pretty interesting.
+ Let Boxer come back as a progamer.
- Noob Friendly (as a spectator i want to see pros raping noobs, not noobs easily look like a pro)
- Horrendously skewed balance between races.
- Indistinguishable battles. I dont know what is going on until one side completely died out.
- Lack of variety in strategies. Most people seem to go with 1-base play for a good part of the game. Scissor-Paper-Stone opening (before scouting) can almost determine the game's outcome as is.
- Lack of variety in map pool (all of them look so small with so few bases)
- Uninteresting units (outside of Banelings).
- Uninteresting abilities (Force Field is decent, Fungal Growth as well, to a lesser extent) especially when i have Brood War to compare to.
- Outside of Hydralisks. Units are so ... fat.. (if not they are just outright ugly) They all look slender and beautiful back in BW.. Esp Zerglings and DTs. More pixels doesnt solve this bad unit design problem.
Let me know if theres any unreasonable points that you disagree with, but do try to keep the flames away.
|
My biggest con of SC2 is the sound effects. For example the hydra attack, stim, siege tank is so much better in BW.
|
Pros for BW
Phenomenally high skill-cap
Great balance
Exciting gameplay in most match-ups
ICCUP/BNet with chat channels and flexible chat system
Cons for BW
? For it's time there really aren't any. Graphics were good when it came out.
Pros for SC2 (at the moment)
Graphics
The "new" feel, lots of intense interest, lots of stuff not figured out yet
Cons for SC2 (at the moment)
Bad balance (particularly in skill-cap differential for the races)
No chat channels
Inflexible matchmaking (can't chose match-up/maps)
Limit on custom map information (helms deep etc... not possible)
Lag with relatively few units on screen
|
United States11393 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
