|
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.
|
thought of some things while i was at the store.
1. english. tip top games are available to see in english immediately. GOM cares about the english speaking community (or at least our money), but KESPA, OGN, MBC, etc. dont seem to. so you get high quality content in a language you understand.
2. koreans interact with foreigners. its not this korean vs foreigner mentality as much as sc:bw. koreans are on foreign teams. koreans and non-koreans are sharing practice houses (OGS/TL, Slayers/EG, etc.). this is almost unheard of in BW. sure, they had token players (e.g., Idra at the end), but its not like the foreigners had a real place on the team. the only time you saw foreigner vs korean was WCG, and WCG was a piece of shit tournament.
3. bw is dying (or dead). so, it is either give up on your favorite players (who are rumored to be coming to SC2 and LoL/DOTA2/Etc.) and starcraft, or make the switch.
|
On April 09 2012 05:41 antiRW wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:36 MCXD wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is have barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
Though I will say that the BW community is heck of a lot better than the SC2 community. All you have to do is compare the IPL/GSL LR threads to the OSL/SPL LR threads. This is an excellent post, up until the third paragraph. Why bring such a point up in here? Is your assumption that he does not enjoy SC2 as much because of the community. If that is not your argument, then let us try not to start a BW vs SC2 community discussion in here (whether or not your are right).
You're right. Edited.
|
On April 09 2012 05:57 Zuor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:54 TaShadan wrote:
@zuor
you seem to care cause you replied Well, if I wasn't clear enough: I don't. Stay in the BW section please, no one is interested in your stupid, ignorant comments here.
You just never played BW so you're just hating on anyone trying to have a decent conversation about how different SC2 and BW are.
|
On April 09 2012 05:59 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:57 Acertos wrote:
look at nestea vs stephano on ipl u will see micro I have it on, but for now I'm more focused on trying to keep the discussion in this thread civil. So far, by continuously posting polite comments I've kept things productive, but i suspect that if i stop things will go downhill. I've gotten some good recommendations so far, and I want to keep them coming.
Your persistance has convinced me that you are, in fact, not trolling. I was at fault for reading of the title as 'Please help me, I'm trying so hard to like SC2, but its just too bad.'
|
On April 09 2012 05:57 Acertos wrote:
look at nestea vs stephano on ipl u will see micro
well its zvz
|
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.
|
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.
|
The reason you don't hear SC2 fans talk about deep strategy, is that they have little to no understanding of the game.
If you really pay attention to a GSL game you can see these deep plans unfold.
|
On April 09 2012 05:53 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL. Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
I didn't say it's a trolling attempt. It's more purposeful than trolling. You're basically trying to win arguments against SC2 fans and convince them that their game is inferior. Do you really expect us to believe that after watching SC2 since EARLY BETA, you haven't seen all the counterarguments to your laundry list of its shortcomings. You made this thread for people to convince you that SC2 battles take longer than BW battles?
|
When the GSTL or IPL4 release VODs from last night's GSTL Finals, watch game 1 of Parting vs MarineKingPrime. Really sick matches. Also, check these two VODs out. MKP's build and unit control are unreal. And then Naniwa vs Huk with the base race has a ton of micro. Just a few matches with sick micro off the time of my head.
Parting vs MarineKingPrime
Naniwa vs Huk
|
On April 09 2012 06:01 MCXD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:41 antiRW wrote:On April 09 2012 05:36 MCXD wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is have barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
Though I will say that the BW community is heck of a lot better than the SC2 community. All you have to do is compare the IPL/GSL LR threads to the OSL/SPL LR threads. This is an excellent post, up until the third paragraph. Why bring such a point up in here? Is your assumption that he does not enjoy SC2 as much because of the community. If that is not your argument, then let us try not to start a BW vs SC2 community discussion in here (whether or not your are right). You're right. Edited.
Awesome 
|
On April 09 2012 05:52 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:35 Gobe wrote:On April 09 2012 04:56 Bleak wrote:On April 09 2012 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 04:47 Bleak wrote:On April 09 2012 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 04:43 Bleak wrote:
6) There are tons more positional units and more units that can be increased in value with good micro. Aside from Sentry and Blink stalkers, there's really no Unit in SC2 that rewards good control.
do you even play sc2? what kind of stupid comment is this.... If you count carpet fungalling or stutter step as really things that reward good control, then as I've said, you really haven't watched BW enough (or any). Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what other units you think are there in SC2 that you can increase its value hugely with good control? all units require good control to maximize their benefit. saying that you can just 1a everything and get maximum benefit from units is just stupid. i played bw since 1998, and all of the blizzard games before then. it was a great game. You misunderstood me. I'm not saying the rest of the units don't shine with good control. They do. But a Blink upgrade or good Force Field control can really turn the tide of battle. The ability and the upgrade takes those units and elavates them way more then their main intended combat use. Day9 explained this it nicely in a daily with values etc. If your opponent has 50 marines and you have 50 banelings it doesn't really matter how much you split. Yes I've seen Foxer, now MKP split insanely and it's nice to watch, but I've seen countless many games where banelings just crash in and Marines fall like dominos. Alternatively, it doesn't matter what you can do with say, Marines versus Fungal Growth. You get Fungalled and you die. That's it. Forcefield is kinda the same, but it is way harder (still not insanely harder) to pull of than a fungal. When Z attacks you with 40 roaches at 12min and when you are only 120 supply as Protoss, those FF need to be really good so that you can survive. And when that's pulled off, that is amazing. There aren't many things like this in SC2. Then again these are my opinions and people are free to believe what they want. Yeah it's a little hard to understand why a more expensive unit (baneling) which is a heavy to counters the marine, actually counters the marine. And you'll will be so much more cost effective anyways with your micro. But there are so many of these situations in SC2 where it feels like "Oh okay, so he's made that unit and I don't have X, I'm most likely dead OR my units will be useless against that unit". Immortal vs armored, Marauder vs armored, Colossus versus pretty much anything on ground, Thors against Mutalisks, Blue flame hellions against lings etc. the list goes on you get the idea. So much rock, paper, scissors. For example Irradiate, a spell cast from a flying spellcaster unit of Terran in BW is the Muta killer (since Zerg players clump their Mutalisks to the maximum to attack in the most efficient and safe way as possible) One Irradiate and the clump takes a lot of damage, BUT, a good Zerg player will remove the affected Mutalisk from the group before the whole stack is doomed and continue with the harrass. You got caught clumped against a couple Thors? You lose that Mutalisk pack and there's nothing you can do but preemptively spit the unit, which makes it more vulnerable to a thousand many things and is boring to watch. It is beautiful to watch great Mutalisk control in BW, a cloud of mutalisks clumped on a single point darting in and out, spewing destruction on anything they can bite. A couple of spider mines can kill probably something like 20 Zerglings in one shot (perhaps even more, not that knowledable about the rate of stacking of Zerglings in a close bunch, have to check) BUT, Zerg player can bring an overlord to spot them and pick them off with Hydralisks. Lurkers decimate Marines. It's even worse than Banelings, it's basically a Baneling launcher attacking in a straight line, but it stays where it is and keeps attacking instead of dying when it does its thing. BUT, Terran players can scan, bring a Science Vessel for detection, and try their luck with better splitting. It is this dynamic "This can hurt but maybe I can get around it with this if I control well" is what makes BW really good to watch. By comparison, if you get caught against a big bunch of blue flame hellions with zerglings, unless you outnumber them heavily, there's almost nothing you can do. Those Zerglings will die. You either need roaches (brings us back to rock-paper-scissors), something flying, or Spine Crawlers (or Ultralisks  ) Spine crawlers are immobile, and if you don't already have Mutalisks, you can't do shit with just ling/bling.
You do realize that for every BW example (sans the Mutalisk one, which would be comparable to Hunter Seeker Missile directly), you're using multiple units to counteract the same supposed problem. Lings with no Hydra Suppoert taking on Spider Mines? Naked Marines (in larger numbers) taking on Lurkers in an entrenched position with no support? Ling/Bling with Infestor support is fairly decent against mass BF Hellions if you spread, control, and flank well. Lurkers are immobile, Roach Lair is gotten often now (it has the added benefit of a strong all in, a good timing attack, or just a small number of Roaches to deflect Hellions, all three are wildly different in goal). While you may think you're making a decent point, it's a simplistic point at best and you're using two rulers instead of one.
@OP Great post, will try to answer you later (though I suck with VODs, so I'l just point you in the right direction, hopefully).
|
On April 09 2012 06:05 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:53 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL. Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet. I didn't say it's a trolling attempt. It's more purposeful than trolling. You're basically trying to win arguments against SC2 fans and convince them that their game is inferior. Do you really expect us to believe that after watching SC2 since EARLY BETA, you haven't seen all the counterarguments to your laundry list of its shortcomings. You made this thread for people to convince you that SC2 battles take longer than BW battles?
If believing this makes you feel good about yourself, feel free. All I'd ask is that you find a quote of me in this thread actively arguing with a SC2 fan before you decide that is my intention.
On April 09 2012 06:06 CPTBadAss wrote:When the GSTL or IPL4 release VODs from last night's GSTL Finals, watch game 1 of Parting vs MarineKingPrime. Really sick matches. Also, check these two VODs out. MKP's build and unit control are unreal. And then Naniwa vs Huk with the base race has a ton of micro. Just a few matches with sick micro off the time of my head. Parting vs MarineKingPrimeNaniwa vs Huk
I'll check them out, thanks.
|
On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
This is the main reason I won't try BW. Who knows where SC2 will be in 10 years and if it will stand up to BW or not. But being part of the scene as the game grows and changes is so exciting I don't want to stop being a part of that.
|
On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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...
|
On April 09 2012 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:30 Ercster wrote:On April 09 2012 04:25 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
It's a really rough transition to make because as a Brood War fan (I played BW semi-religiously from 1998-2010), you expect SC2 to match, or at least come close to, what Brood War meant to you. Not only does SC2 not have the history, but the dynamics of the game are different:
1) Economic harass is much less effective since workers return fewer minerals per trip and can be replenished much more quickly.
2) Splash damage is much more prevalent, and micro-negating spells are unavoidable.
3) Both macro and micro are easier, but coming from the same approach that you seem to be, even "incredible" micro in SC2 does not come anywhere near how watching a BW legend feels, even on a bad day.
4) The BW term "strategic play" has become "cheese," and it isn't punished nearly as hard as it is in BW because of inject/chrono boost/mules.
This is how I felt about the game when I first transitioned after finding it impossible to play BW on my new PC. I've developed these opinions a little bit more and I still conclusively feel that BW is, and will always be, the better game, but SC2 is a pretty good replacement if there has to be one. Also, you have to compare SC2 to 98'-00' BW and not BW now. nobody would play sc:bw patch 1.0 over sc2 patch 1.0.
I didn't refer specifically to the patch, but rather to the time period.
|
On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 09 2012 06:12 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 Ercster wrote:On April 09 2012 04:25 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
It's a really rough transition to make because as a Brood War fan (I played BW semi-religiously from 1998-2010), you expect SC2 to match, or at least come close to, what Brood War meant to you. Not only does SC2 not have the history, but the dynamics of the game are different:
1) Economic harass is much less effective since workers return fewer minerals per trip and can be replenished much more quickly.
2) Splash damage is much more prevalent, and micro-negating spells are unavoidable.
3) Both macro and micro are easier, but coming from the same approach that you seem to be, even "incredible" micro in SC2 does not come anywhere near how watching a BW legend feels, even on a bad day.
4) The BW term "strategic play" has become "cheese," and it isn't punished nearly as hard as it is in BW because of inject/chrono boost/mules.
This is how I felt about the game when I first transitioned after finding it impossible to play BW on my new PC. I've developed these opinions a little bit more and I still conclusively feel that BW is, and will always be, the better game, but SC2 is a pretty good replacement if there has to be one. Also, you have to compare SC2 to 98'-00' BW and not BW now. nobody would play sc:bw patch 1.0 over sc2 patch 1.0. I didn't refer specifically to the patch, but rather to the time period.
yeah, my statement was a bit vague. what i meant was that if the two games came out at the same time, nobody would watch sc:bw over sc2. it doesnt really matter though. the thread isnt a sc2 vs bw thread like i originally thought the OP was trying to incite.
|
On April 09 2012 04:37 FuRRyChoBo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:30 Ercster wrote:On April 09 2012 04:25 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
It's a really rough transition to make because as a Brood War fan (I played BW semi-religiously from 1998-2010), you expect SC2 to match, or at least come close to, what Brood War meant to you. Not only does SC2 not have the history, but the dynamics of the game are different:
1) Economic harass is much less effective since workers return fewer minerals per trip and can be replenished much more quickly.
2) Splash damage is much more prevalent, and micro-negating spells are unavoidable.
3) Both macro and micro are easier, but coming from the same approach that you seem to be, even "incredible" micro in SC2 does not come anywhere near how watching a BW legend feels, even on a bad day.
4) The BW term "strategic play" has become "cheese," and it isn't punished nearly as hard as it is in BW because of inject/chrono boost/mules.
This is how I felt about the game when I first transitioned after finding it impossible to play BW on my new PC. I've developed these opinions a little bit more and I still conclusively feel that BW is, and will always be, the better game, but SC2 is a pretty good replacement if there has to be one. Also, you have to compare SC2 to 98'-00' BW and not BW now. Not necessarily the case. Brood War couldn't save replays until May of 2001, which is a feature that was implemented from the start with SC2. Sharing replays develops the game exponentially faster than simply playing and figuring things out on your own. Also, there could easily be weeks or months between televised games back during the KPGA and early OGN days (Tooniverse, Hanbitsoft, etc), and the VODs were borderline impossible to find. If I had to quantify it, I'd guess SC2 is roughly around the 2005-2006 era BW simply because of all the information sharing and sheer amount of games being played constantly.
This isn't relevant to my post or the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
