|
Or rather, it wasn't that he lacked strategy, more like he lacked.. everything.
|
On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
|
On April 09 2012 07:22 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:21 INFDexter wrote:
Is the OP honestly trying to compare BW in its prime days to Sc2, a game barely out of its first year in existence? Lets face it, everyone sucks at sc2. People just haven't played it long enough. Fair enough. Why then do you like SC2, in spite of the fact that you feel it is played poorly? Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:22 AKomrade wrote:
A lot of valid points. Because SC2 is so much faster paced and strategically oriented, it often feels like things in game are much differently (and extremely valued) than in other RTS games, BW included. There never seems to be a middle ground in things like engagements, economy management, skirmishes etc. Its either do or do not.
While this prevents players from recovering from large mistakes (which is fair, honestly) it prevents a lot of the potential from being reached. The force multipliers aren't as meaningful as they are in other games and while, yes, control IS valuable, there is no excess in which you can make it more valuable than it already is, or make it just slightly more useful. Just to provide you some perspective, this is an argument that BW fans really dislike. In general, we feel that BW requires at least as much strategy as SC2 while also requiring better mechanics. Therefore, when we hear people say SC2 is "more strategic" it really irks us.
Here's my thoughts on the mechanics thing - It is without question that BW requires more mechanics. But can physical multitasking be rewarded as much in SC2 as in BW? I think so. To clarify, I feel that while BW requires more mechanics, the actual ceiling for potential benefit of having that mechanical ability is pretty much equal. And I am 100% with you on the strategic thing too. BW games are not two robots bashing their heads against each other until one wins. You have extremely clever strategies, tactics, and mind games involved in BW. Just read up on the famous Bisu/Savior series (VOD with english commentary:+ Show Spoiler +) where Bisu broke out a crazy DT/Corsair strategy and pretty much revolutionized PvZ. Sure, you can brute force a weaker opponent with mechanics and win in BW, just like you can in SC2. But with players at the highest level, BW absolutely deserves its title as a real time strategy game.
|
If you enjoy it then what do you need convincing for
|
On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
Yeah, unfortunately, armies splitting off and engaging each other at separate areas of the map just isn't part of sc2 yet. Whenever I try something like that on the ladder, I get smashed, and then good players tell me it's a nooby thing to do. For whatever reason, it's generally not considered to be a good tactic at all, hence the reason why armies are always clumped up in one big ball. Separation of the ball of death = death 9 times out of 10. (Maybe less than that, but you get the idea :p )
|
It's that time of the month again eh?
Listen if you can't get into watching Sc2 that's fine but stop coming to our forums and making posts like this. You wouldn't consider it acceptable if we went into the LoL/BW forums and took a steaming shit on them and went on about how our game is better, why do you think it's okay here.
Different games are different.
|
On April 09 2012 07:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
If you enjoy it then what do you need convincing for
Because that game made me go "that's neat" while the last OSL finals made me shout with joy at 4 in the morning.
|
On April 09 2012 07:40 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
If you enjoy it then what do you need convincing for Because that game made me go "that's neat" while the last OSL finals made me shout with joy at 4 in the morning.
Then make an informed decision about whether watching SC2 is a worthwhile use of your time or not.
|
On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines. I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon. Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
|
Good stuff man, really entertaining to read. I agree with pretty much everything you said here, I hope heart of the swarm brings many new great things to sc2 to make it more entertaining to watch.
|
On April 09 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines. I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does. On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon. Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it. so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC2" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
On April 09 2012 07:40 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:40 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
If you enjoy it then what do you need convincing for Because that game made me go "that's neat" while the last OSL finals made me shout with joy at 4 in the morning. Then make an informed decision about whether watching SC2 is a worthwhile use of your time or not.
As I've said many times, that's the point of this thread. To let me make that decision in an informed manner.
|
On April 09 2012 07:42 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines. I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does. On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon. Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it. so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all. No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma."
|
BW had better map control units with lurkers, reavers, and spider mines, so battles were more spread out by necessity.
That's why the Swarm Host is what excites me most in HotS, XvZ will become more about map control. TvT and TvZ are already map-control based due to tanks, that MMA vs Stephano game had fewer tanks so it was more blob vs blob than usual in TvZ.
|
On April 09 2012 07:19 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:13 Fyrewolf wrote:On April 09 2012 06:53 deafhobbit wrote: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. 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. Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that. It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing. Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:16 KrsOne wrote:
Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over. I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
Saying you wouldn't watch it even if you see the potential for what you want in it is just being pretentious. That vinegar analogy doesn't work, people put vinegar on salad dressing because it tastes good. If what you say is lacking is not, most of your arguments are completely moot.
And as for your other argument, while you may think faster battles are less enjoyable, the community unfortunately thinks otherwise. There is a reason we play on the "Fastest" setting, even if it makes blizzard time annoying to deal with.
|
On April 09 2012 07:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:42 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines. I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does. On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon. Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it. so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all. No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all. yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma."
You're changing the subject. The issue isn't whether or not that game was entertaining as a whole (it was), but whether or not a specific thing that occurs in BW was happening (it wasn't).
|
On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
Ok, I feel the same way. I enjoyed BW without playing it, but I didn't enjoy watching SC2 before actually picking up the game.
|
OP, why don't you specifically tell us what you want out of this thread.
-Do you want us to argue your points and point out how SC2 has strategy and micro?
-Do you want VOD examples of good SC2 games?
Both of those have been provided, so it must be something else. Enlighten us.
|
I think a good example of great micro and of an exciting game was yesterdays game in GSTL between MKP and Parting. It didn't have multiple battles going on at the same time but it demonstrated great unit control and showed that even tho units get clumped that if a player has great control they can make the outcome go in their favor after a large engagement. If only the game wasn't plagued by that drop then it would have been perfect.
|
On April 09 2012 07:45 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:42 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:36 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:32 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching? I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once. This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map. On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
[quote]
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different. he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want? edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time. He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler. That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle. if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find. edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines. I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does. On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote:
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon. Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it. so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all. No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all. yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma." You're changing the subject. The issue isn't whether or not that game was entertaining as a whole (it was), but whether or not a specific thing that occurs in BW was happening (it wasn't).
i never said it was the same as BW. read the quotes. and im addressing the point of this whole thread: convincing you whether to watch sc2. although i am beginning to agree with most people that argue you want less to enjoy sc2 than to convince people that bw is better.
|
On April 09 2012 07:43 Cassel_Castle wrote:
BW had better map control units with lurkers, reavers, and spider mines, so battles were more spread out by necessity.
That's why the Swarm Host is what excites me most in HotS, XvZ will become more about map control. TvT and TvZ are already map-control based due to tanks, that MMA vs Stephano game had fewer tanks so it was more blob vs blob than usual in TvZ.
Definitely. SC2 did a great job of creating furious, faster paced battles. But they really cut back on space control. I'd love to see a marriage of the two.
EDIT: I'd also recommend avoiding picking games purely based on who's playing for examples of what SC2 is. It's impossible to say before a game starts if it's going to be great or not. Sure, it might be jaedong vs flash. But who's to say Jaedong won't just 4 pool or something, or Flash won't all in with proxied rax? It could be a lame, 6 minute or less game. You can call a game a great example of something ONLY if you've seen the whole thing through, start to finish. Stephano VS MMA was an example of one thing that could happen, not the absolute pinnacle in entertainment of TvZ, or even Stephano VS MMA, in SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
