|
On April 09 2012 06:54 Supah wrote:
I think a lot of you guys are still too defensively minded regarding this comparison. OP wants examples now, not promises in the future. While maybe BW peaks are still higher than SC2 peaks (a point I'm not willing to concede, but I have almost no knowledge of BW), SC2 is not chopped liver, and as fans of the game you should be holding your ground on it and defending it on whatever terms the guy wants. If it's solid, it will hold. If it's not, then be honest with yourselves.
Thank you. It's getting kind of annoying when people complain about me not answering their arguments when I'm not here to argue.
On April 09 2012 06:56 Durp wrote:Interestingly enough, the first season of GSL Code-S (January 2011) had some really excellent TvTs, with what I would imagine a lot of what you're looking. IM_MVP was trouncing everybody, if you're looking for mind-games and strategies, the finals will not disappoint. MVP planned out and executed excellent builds, designed to counter MKP's TvT style at the time: http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors1/vod/60080Also in that same season, MKP and Nada had an excellent TvT series, with an awesome game 1 that I also believe will keep you happy http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors1/vod/60080As for right now, I'd suggest watching the Blizzard Cup finals, DRG vs MMA. This was the year's final tournament, between two of the best for their respected races (ZvT). The series had drama, excitement, and an unbelievable ending that actually went down to a BW-esque small unit battle though involving high tech units - a complaint lodged in your OP. Also FXOLeenock vs oGsForGG. I can not remember off hand what season that was from (if someone reading this does, pls link for OP). This game had epic, drawn out position battles, which tons of harass and counter attacks. Having been a BW Champion, ForGG had a lot of hype, and his micro/macro did not disappoint. Leenock is someone occasionally likened to a JulyZerg of Sc2 (starting young and crushing face). This game will not disappoint. These games should appeal to the BW-style qualities you're looking for. If none of these hit the spot for you, than I deem you incurable, and forever stuck as a BW nostalgia-fag. (this is a joke, but the message is the same: if some of the best SC2 has to offer doesn't appeal to you, than maybe you just don't like StarCraft 2)
Thanks, I'll check those out. Again though, VOD's i don't have to pay for are appreciated.
|
I think what makes me enjoy starcraft 2 alot more, is the face that its not just a korean sport, i mean most koreans are better, but we still have 2-5 players that can always upset.
|
If you think the micro sc2 pros do is lack luster, try to do it yourself and then tell me how easy it is.
|
The post was well written, and I applaud your intent with it, but there are a couple issues that I have here.
First and foremost, telling us how we can convince you of something kind of defeats the purpose. If you have any desire to continue hating sc2 you're going to have specific arguments prepared to combat whatever arguments we ourselves put in place. It's like saying "Ok, lets play this game, but I only want you to play using this keyboard that has a very specific hotkey layout, and if you don't use that hotkey layout I'm not going to accept the defeat." It kind of puts people on the defensive before they've even read your arguments.
That being said, I do respect that you put forth the effort and I genuinely believe the post was made with the intent to get a positive reaction from the community, and to learn a bit about SC2. I just feel that maybe it was too well thought out, and as some others have said it probably would have been better as a blog.
Anyway, I think the major problem with this way of thinking is that you're comparing a game with 10+ years of balance with a game that has 2 years of balance. That is absolutely the biggest issue with these arguments. Give it another 2 years, and the 1 expansion that BW had before you write it off. If you're not willing to do that then I can't honestly believe that you want to enjoy SC2 at all. Hell, come back in 2 years and watch it then.
I honestly hope that you are able to enjoy the game that I love so dearly, and sincerely hope that you are able to see it in the same light some of us other fans do. I don't have any examples contradicting the views you currently have about the game and don't trust myself to put my feelings eloquently enough to not sound condescending and insulting, So I wouldn't be able to add any more to the thread, but I once again hope you find this game a joy at some point in the future.
|
@deafhobbit:
Very thoughtful and sincere post. I really can sense your passion for Brood War.
Lack of Strategy: I'm sure you've thought of it, and it's probably been mentioned a thousand times, but SC2 isn't yet two years old, while Brood War is almost 14 years old. That's several eternities of difference, in PC gaming terms, for players to improve mechanically and strategically. Also, Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void (the expansions) aren't out yet.
So give SC2 some time. Maybe the expansions and evolving playerbase/metagame will provide the amount of strategy you want. In the meantime, Here's a link about the new HotS units; looks like Zerg is getting something akin to a flying Defiler. If only Lurkers were brought back...
|
If we compare bw to sc2, sc2 is very good !
Now broodwar, so boring to watch in my opinion
|
On April 09 2012 06:59 KrsOne wrote:
If you think the micro sc2 pros do is lack luster, try to do it yourself and then tell me how easy it is.
I never said anything about SC2 being easy, i just said i don't enjoy it as much as you guys do.
On April 09 2012 07:00 Noobity wrote:
The post was well written, and I applaud your intent with it, but there are a couple issues that I have here.
First and foremost, telling us how we can convince you of something kind of defeats the purpose. If you have any desire to continue hating sc2 you're going to have specific arguments prepared to combat whatever arguments we ourselves put in place. It's like saying "Ok, lets play this game, but I only want you to play using this keyboard that has a very specific hotkey layout, and if you don't use that hotkey layout I'm not going to accept the defeat." It kind of puts people on the defensive before they've even read your arguments.
That being said, I do respect that you put forth the effort and I genuinely believe the post was made with the intent to get a positive reaction from the community, and to learn a bit about SC2. I just feel that maybe it was too well thought out, and as some others have said it probably would have been better as a blog.
Anyway, I think the major problem with this way of thinking is that you're comparing a game with 10+ years of balance with a game that has 2 years of balance. That is absolutely the biggest issue with these arguments. Give it another 2 years, and the 1 expansion that BW had before you write it off. If you're not willing to do that then I can't honestly believe that you want to enjoy SC2 at all. Hell, come back in 2 years and watch it then.
I honestly hope that you are able to enjoy the game that I love so dearly, and sincerely hope that you are able to see it in the same light some of us other fans do. I don't have any examples contradicting the views you currently have about the game and don't trust myself to put my feelings eloquently enough to not sound condescending and insulting, So I wouldn't be able to add any more to the thread, but I once again hope you find this game a joy at some point in the future.
I don't hate SC2, i just don't like it as much as BW.
I provided examples of arguments largely to keep the discussion on track. So far, it's worked reasonably well.
And like I've said in other replies, I'm aware SC2 has improved a lot since it started, and expect it to continue doing so. I'm not asking you guys to give me hope that I'll enjoy the game in a year, I'm asking for help enjoying the game today.
|
Well thought out OP, I agree with all the points.
I don't think anyone can counter your points with examples - bw and sc2 are just different games, and the things you like more about bw are among the things that make the two games different.
For me, I don't watch bw as much because it's just not as popular among my friends and among the population in general. I play game for the social environment more than anything, and if I'm going to watch the next big tournament, I'd rather do it with at least a friend or two or even by going to a barcraft and viewing it with hundreds of people. If I want to watch bw, I'm alone, and... it's just not as fun.
Also, along those lines, I like the fact that I've been with the sc2 scene since early on - I've seen it grow, I'm familiar with all the top tier levels of play and the pro players who participate, and so the story surrounding each event and each matchup is intriguing for me. When I watch bw, the only thing I'm familiar with is Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, Stork, Fantasy, and a couple other guys that I can't even think of because I just haven't paid attention to it. I can go back and watch some old vods and try to catch up, but it's just not the same as having watched the entire scene come to life the way I have with sc2.
BW was an amazing game, and I agree with most ex-bw players/spectators that it was a better game overall. However, I still love sc2, and I hope that Blizzard is able to, with some time, increase the skill cap and lengthen the battles and make their game into an even better specator sport.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't enjoy watching sc2 - I won't try to make you change your mind. But hopefully, if you're able to get into the scene more, you'll be able to enjoy it in the future.
|
OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread
|
I don't really understand what the purpose of these posts is. To me they just seem like directionless complaining. This has been said a million times before and it seems like it will be said a million more times. I think the only reason they don't get closed immediately is because of bias by some of the forum moderators.
The simple fact of the matter is that every single thing mentioned on this list has constantly and consistently improved in Starcraft 2.
1) Army positioning is extremely important in Starcraft 2. Decision making is absolutely the standard that sets pro players apart from everyone else. Earlier on in the metagame people who could macro well or play fast were some of the best (remember oGsTOP?) but now everyone is good at base management and people who display strategic prowess have risen to the top (MarineKing, DRG, July, etc...).
2) In Starcraft 2 in basically every battle that is seen at the pro level, improved positioning can help both players gain a better advantage and have a more effective engagement. In early Starcraft 2 players didn't know how to position their armies so it was all about having the right unit composition in their "deathball." Now, however, players must spend considerably longer positioning and then re-positioning their armies. I would say battle length at least three to four times as long on average as it used to be and it will continue to increase. One thing that is also contributing to longer battles is more equal engagements. When both players trade at a similar cost-effectiveness it means their reinforcements can continue fighting an even battle when they arrive.
3) Micro is a very high level addition to play. Why do you see it in the early game more than the late game? Because the early game is quite figured out. Players aren't busy thinking about what strategic decision to make (because they've already made it) and are free to maximize army effectiveness. In the late game players are just barely figuring out how to position their army prior to the engagement, let alone how to micro during the engagement.
I find your post extremely pessimistic, but also willfully ignorant of the massive improvement in the level of pro SC2 play. People easily forget that the game is quite different from Brood War and that all of the strategies are being mapped out from scratch. It's only been two years and not even one expansion has come out yet. And as for your statement that pro SC2 never puts you on the edge of your seat: Really? Almost every major SC2 tournament is having a sick finals lately. Maybe it's because you're watching old games or something?
|
A lot of what you says is true, but just as much is not because of your lack of knowledge of sc2. Having played both sc1 and sc2(at a gm level), I've seen sc2 micro that is just as amazing as some of your examples of sc1 micro.
While strategies are somewhat lacking in sc2, the top games still have subtle strategical differences that only high level players can understand and appreciate. Even great commentators like Artosis miss half of these things when they occur, and I probably miss some as well; but they are definitely present.
and the Esports argument is valid, just because all you care about is your own entertainment doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Players have it extremely hard, and they show incredible skill which you cant even see b/c you are just a casual viewer. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to stop other people, the people who realize that sc2 is as difficult as any other "acknowledged" sport, the people who know how hard players have to train and how little they get for it, and the people want the players to actually be recognized and appreciated for what they do.
|
On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote:
OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate.
|
On April 09 2012 07:06 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote:
OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate.
i have and like everyone was ignored or dismissed
|
On April 09 2012 06:47 hegeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:28 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Well considering your "demands" of what you want from the game, you won't be able to enjoy the game today. Again, how long did it take BW to be balanced and therefore consistently watchable? Much longer than 2 years. These non-facts should be forbidden. Get your facts straight! Hard facts: You know how many patches SC had? There were just 2 patches changing balance, (1.04/1.08), one of them balancing BW (ONE!) and it didn't really take "much longer than 2 years". Overall, ~ 90 changes were made in balance, less than the ~110 already done in SC2 since beta, including SC2 beta, over 210 changes in balance were made to SC2, sometimes changing abilities back and forth. Btw there are already 36 changes made to the infestor alone in SC2. Thinking about the addition of replay features to BW afterwards AND the fact that the SC2 beta was played by thousands of players (and detailed facts for every unit/map readily available to Blizzard), in contrast to a probably very limited SC:BW beta, it is even more fascinating how balanced BW is. So, seriously, PLEASE nobody ever say again that BW had to be balanced for years. It didn't. Just not true.
I was more referring to the development of the overall metagame. This is what people mean when they talk about BW balance.
|
On April 09 2012 07:01 Gyro_SC2 wrote:If we compare bw to sc2, sc2 is very good ! Now broodwar, so boring to watch in my opinion
...This is the most funny thing anyone has ever posted. You are comparing pro sc2 players, not to pro bw players, not to amateur bw players, BUT FUCKING BOTS THAT WERE DEVELOPED FOR AN AI COMPETITION. lol
|
On April 09 2012 07:07 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:06 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote:
OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate. i have and like everyone was ignored or dismissed
I'm sorry, i forgot you had provided some constructive replies. Just because i didn't explicitly quote your recommendation to watch Grubby doesn't mean i didn't notice it.
|
On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original. Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW.
I think Supah's post that you replied to highlights a lot of what I really enjoy about SC2 over BW. There's an incredible emphasis on absolutely perfect unit control in any sort of engagement, whether it's a pair of scout lings fighting over a watchtower, or a massive 200/200 fight where you have the "dances of death" going on. There are TINY windows of opportunities in these battles, and if you want to win you HAVE to take them. But if your control is off by the slightest margin, or your position is wrong that you create a tiny window that your opponent can exploit as well. You can have battles that look like they should be even, and then in the blink of an eye one side gets completely routed. And then, the REALLY great players, through having to control a huge variety and number of units in a smaller physical space PERFECTLY, will also be couterattacking with lings, drops, warp prisms etc. And even there, if someone tries to do that and they do mess up and loose their army, even if their counterattack did a ton of damage, there's just no way to hold off a giant army. This is a good and a bad thing of course, but in this context I love it. Do you want to try to win on multiple fronts? Well, you'd better do it PERFECTLY or the game is over, right then and there. Their economy can recover, and if your army didn't take out enough of theirs, you won't last another five minutes. It creates for very fast and furious large engagements, and with macro being easier, THAT'S where a player's physical abilities can really shine. I enjoy it for some of the same reasons I like watching dota 2: You get a game with lots of aggressive poking and posturing early on, and attempts to gain map control that can be very temporary, and not worth too much if not capitalized on quickly. Then, for the big fights, you have a million different things going on, and there are so many completely different abilities and units interacting with each other in a tiny space of time. They can go fairly even, one side can minimize its losses, but with the slightest bit of overcomittal things can change INSTANTLY. Very different games, but at times they can evoke the same types of feelings and reactions from me.
Another thing I like about SC2 is that is ISN'T as developed as BW. You have a lot of pressure to win, and do whatever you can to do so. But at the same time, if you're going to be sucessful in the long term, you need to be able to evolve as a player, have incredible depth to your play, and begin looking at the game in ways that no one else has yet. They address problems in a very different way. For example, in SC1, mech was very, well, mechanical. But in SC2, you have people, like MKP, experimenting with finding ways to mix the raw damage of bio with the resilience and utility of mech. This can take very different forms matchup to matchup, and even those that are doing it are still experimenting with how many hellions they might want to add, when they get which upgrades, expantion timings, how to properly replenish lost units, what can and cannot be afforded to be lost, etc. You can see certain players begin to just see the game in ways that no one else does. But, will they be the ones able to take it to the next level? Do they have the physical ability to execute what they see, and do they have the mental quickness and endurance to react to situations in game properly? Did they just stumble upon something, or do they really have an incredible mind? I just love watching that sort of development, and it creates wonderful storylines withnot just the evolution of the metagame, but the individual players that are driving that evolution.
|
On April 09 2012 07:01 Gyro_SC2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If we compare bw to sc2, sc2 is very good ! Now broodwar, so boring to watch in my opinion
Maybe it's boring because you're watching the AIs play against eachother? Seriously...
|
On April 09 2012 07:11 Haydin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original. Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW. I think Supah's post that you replied to highlights a lot of what I really enjoy about SC2 over BW. There's an incredible emphasis on absolutely perfect unit control in any sort of engagement, whether it's a pair of scout lings fighting over a watchtower, or a massive 200/200 fight where you have the "dances of death" going on. There are TINY windows of opportunities in these battles, and if you want to win you HAVE to take them. But if your control is off by the slightest margin, or your position is wrong that you create a tiny window that your opponent can exploit as well. You can have battles that look like they should be even, and then in the blink of an eye one side gets completely routed. And then, the REALLY great players, through having to control a huge variety and number of units in a smaller physical space PERFECTLY, will also be couterattacking with lings, drops, warp prisms etc. And even there, if someone tries to do that and they do mess up and loose their army, even if their counterattack did a ton of damage, there's just no way to hold off a giant army. This is a good and a bad thing of course, but in this context I love it. Do you want to try to win on multiple fronts? Well, you'd better do it PERFECTLY or the game is over, right then and there. Their economy can recover, and if your army didn't take out enough of theirs, you won't last another five minutes. It creates for very fast and furious large engagements, and with macro being easier, THAT'S where a player's physical abilities can really shine. I enjoy it for some of the same reasons I like watching dota 2: You get a game with lots of aggressive poking and posturing early on, and attempts to gain map control that can be very temporary, and not worth too much if not capitalized on quickly. Then, for the big fights, you have a million different things going on, and there are so many completely different abilities and units interacting with each other in a tiny space of time. They can go fairly even, one side can minimize its losses, but with the slightest bit of overcomittal things can change INSTANTLY. Very different games, but at times they can evoke the same types of feelings and reactions from me. Another thing I like about SC2 is that is ISN'T as developed as BW. You have a lot of pressure to win, and do whatever you can to do so. But at the same time, if you're going to be sucessful in the long term, you need to be able to evolve as a player, have incredible depth to your play, and begin looking at the game in ways that no one else has yet. They address problems in a very different way. For example, in SC1, mech was very, well, mechanical. But in SC2, you have people, like MKP, experimenting with finding ways to mix the raw damage of bio with the resilience and utility of mech. This can take very different forms matchup to matchup, and even those that are doing it are still experimenting with how many hellions they might want to add, when they get which upgrades, expantion timings, how to properly replenish lost units, what can and cannot be afforded to be lost, etc. You can see certain players begin to just see the game in ways that no one else does. But, will they be the ones able to take it to the next level? Do they have the physical ability to execute what they see, and do they have the mental quickness and endurance to react to situations in game properly? Did they just stumble upon something, or do they really have an incredible mind? I just love watching that sort of development, and it creates wonderful storylines withnot just the evolution of the metagame, but the individual players that are driving that evolution.
Thank you. I guess I've focused more on the process of the fights, and not the decisions on whether or not to commit to them.
|
On April 09 2012 06:53 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:48 eFonSG wrote:On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original. Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW. On April 09 2012 06:37 thrawn2112 wrote:
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy. Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it. Its reallly funny that you dont see your posts as arrogant or douchy. You ask us for reasons SC2 is better than BW, we tell you that the game is still developing and is on a much much faster track than BW. That not only are the games good now and you need to watch them, but they are going to get a LOT better. Your response is well, fuck what you said i want it now and i dont want to do the work... Fair enough, and in hindsight i could see how my posts could be read as wanting SC2 to have everything i love about BW. I did state in the OP that I'm open to there being ways in which SC2 being different than BW makes it better, but that hasn't come up much in the discussion. I'll try and rectify that. And again, I've tried watching a lot of SC2, and it hasn't made me love the game. So, I'm sorry if i sound frustrated with my replies to the "WATCH IPL" posts, but i hope you can at least understand why that is. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:52 Fyrewolf wrote:On April 09 2012 06:35 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:34 snailz wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. oh damn, you killed it.  OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less. I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments. Yeah, you thanked me so much that I had to call it out as a terrible post that didn't respond to a single point made. That's dismissive. I explained how what you say is lacking is not, and how the faster pace doesn't make it less enjoyable. No one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself. Again, i didn't respond to your points because I'm not arguing with you. Let me repeat, I want to be wrong, and that's why i thanked you.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
