EPTIs SC2 more like GO or Chess? - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
| ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On April 27 2013 05:59 dreamsmasher wrote: is pizza more like a tomato or bacon. Bad analogy since pizza sauce generally has tomato's lol : P so it's obviously tomato. You should have said is a pizza more like a hammer or a cloud? Each instance it makes no sense, if that was the joke you were trying to put over : D | ||
|
FrogOfWar
Germany1406 Posts
On April 27 2013 05:59 dreamsmasher wrote: is pizza more like a tomato or bacon. Depends. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 27 2013 02:51 radscorpion9 wrote: This question used to come up pretty regularly, I'm glad its died down now. Artosis was the first one to think that SC2 was anything remotely similar to chess, I guess because he wanted really badly to make SC2 seem like an intellectual game. And I'm sure it does have that aspect as build orders can be very precise. But the lack of information throws a wrench into the whole equation. When you see pro-gamers lose to some rush that they didn't expect, you think: No, this is not like chess. These ridiculous "surprise" rushes don't happen, and lack of information doesn't leave a player crippled or produce an outright loss. Same with losses due to not having 300 APM that can handle amazing micro or macro. Furthermore, I don't think there are quite as many twelve year old grandmaster/masters players as there are in the highest echelons of chess. The ones that did get that high (Magnus Carlsen) actually deserve it as they are true prodigies. So the difference in intellectual challenge is massive, which is a direct consequence of the game play, which clearly emphasizes the difference between SC2 and real strategy games like Chess or GO. Sorry if that sounded elitist, but there is a pretty big difference. I guess it just feels a bit insulting to compare one of the greatest board games of all time, that has stumped and been enjoyed by some of the greatest thinkers throughout history, being seriously compared to SC2. Its like Transformers to a great work of cinema, it just shouldn't happen  You fall into a similar trap as artosis in your second paragraph. You can't access any accurate appraisal of how intellectual Starcraft is because the abstract side of the game is limited by mechanical performance. The intellectual aspect is in an envelope defined by dexterity and speed. Because of this, you can't really get an accurate picture of the true highest skill Starcraft. On April 27 2013 03:34 Grumbels wrote: I hope someone will write a comprehensive article on game theory and starcraft 2, so that we can just refer to that article instead of having these threads all the time. "Is *real time game with incomplete information X* more like *turn based game with full vision Y* or *turn based game with full vision Z*?" is a stupid debate. yeah. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
sc2 has no moves. You can draw a lot from both games though in terms of strategic thinking or approaches to analysis. Eg all 3 games are well learnt through the use of proverbs as general heuristic devices. Also you cannot possibly argue that sc has the same depth as go if you have got to a high level at go. Skill levels in go are also quantitivley measured - the difference between a 3d and a 5d is mindblowing. The difference between 5k and 1k is also staggering Go is about really deep reading and even then you have to make large 'vague' judgement calls after you have finished, sc is about finesse with units once your mechanics are down. You simply dont have the tiem in sc2 to explore a situation in game as you do in go. SC2 is solved outside of the game. You dont just come up with an amazing build on the spur of the moment mid game wheras you constantly do that in go - yet the basic fundemental knowledge required to not be a noob at go requires at least a couple of years of hard hard study - more than 4 in most peoples cases. As for saying you cant judge the intellectual aspect of sc i disagree. Most people reading this - me included - probably cant because we haven't nailed the mechanics. that doesn't mean that statement is true for everyone. | ||
|
MagnuMizer
Denmark384 Posts
To answer it, i would have to say that starcraft is kind of like, age of empires, or rise of nations or warcraft... It is not a turn-based style like chess or go, but a real-time strategy game.. there you go, lets make a new thread now about toiletseats and if they are anything similar to a regular chair in any way!! come on its gonna be fun /sarcasm | ||
|
Leru
Romania257 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The rolls of the dice are the luck of the draw. You spot the drop, you went robo against blinik, you fast expanded and he thought you were allinning. The game board and how you use the dice is strategy and game sense. You put yourself in a great position to use further dice rolls. You macro hard. You see a path towards victory and set yourself up for it. You want the game board such that you can play off luck. This is similar to scouting for opponent tech so you can better respond to the opponent's army. Spread observers or overlords or sensor towers can help respond to drops, though occasionally some get through or hit with unexpected strength. You react to your opponent in similar ways in both games. You play with the current game state and try to limit his good moves. Mechanics don't really figure in, and I see others blending a board game or card game with things like Boxing and Nascar. | ||
|
DMTsyncope
Netherlands46 Posts
On a more serious note, i think sc2 is more like poker. (Because I heared some people on podcasts say that) | ||
|
lhr0909
United States562 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Chi This game has hard counters for each piece, and more importantly, game starts off with all pieces distributed randomly, and covered (for some moves you will have to open the pieces up) But I think other than the incomplete information that other people is mentioning on the thread, I think the more important aspect of RTS is the mechanics. If you cannot execute things fast enough, and produce more than your opponent by proper multitasking, the incomplete information becomes irrelevant. | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
All three are strategy games and share at least that core concept. I find it impossible to imagine that you seriously cannot compare these games on any level and must give up, lamenting how it is as if you are being asked to compare SC2 to unrelated animals, colors, or numbers. That is completely silly. While I'm not an expert player of any of these 3 games, my thought would be that it is most similar to Go. If you think of TvT's in particular, the territory control and map domination plays out in a similar manner. More similar at least than in Chess in my opinion. | ||
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 Posts
On April 27 2013 04:19 HeeroFX wrote: It's like BW GG no re. lol | ||
|
BernabusStarcraft2
Scotland112 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On April 27 2013 07:10 Befree wrote: I guess this needs to be pointed out. The question was not "What game do you think SC2 is like?" nor was it "How similar is SC2 to Go or Chess?" And certainly it was not "How do you think the skill/depth required in Go and Chess compare to the skill/depth required in SC2?" The Question was "Is SC2 more like Go or Chess?" All three are strategy games and share at least that core concept. I find it impossible to imagine that you seriously cannot compare these games on any level and must give up, lamenting how it is as if you are being asked to compare SC2 to unrelated animals, colors, or numbers. That is completely silly. While I'm not an expert player of any of these 3 games, my thought would be that it is most similar to Go. If you think of TvT's in particular, the territory control and map domination plays out in a similar manner. More similar at least than in Chess in my opinion. it's a stupid question because RTS doesn't have moves the way a turn based game does. execution is the most important skill, not game theory or knowledge. what little game knowledge there is in terms of how to react to your opponent is trivial. sc2's more similar to poker because every "move" in sc2 is playing the odds and trying to guess your opponents position. | ||
|
IMplying
Germany58 Posts
| ||
|
Nyvis
France284 Posts
On April 27 2013 07:10 Befree wrote:While I'm not an expert player of any of these 3 games, my thought would be that it is most similar to Go. If you think of TvT's in particular, the territory control and map domination plays out in a similar manner. More similar at least than in Chess in my opinion. One other reason to side with Go is that Chess is a game of very limited number of moves. You can map them, etc. Go is still a game of limited number of moves, but the limit is so high it's nearly continuous, and exploring every possible move is completely impossible. SC2 goes even further in this direction, because you can always refine your play, at any resolution you want: the game possibilities are continuous, both because of the continuous battle ground and and time. In that sense, it's far away from Chess AND Go, but the logics of approaching and studying Go is more applicable than the one used with Chess since you can't map and study every possible move. SC2 is clearly analysable with patterns like go (both local and global patterns, aka "limited engagements with a given composition, with a given outcome if each player goes for the optimal play", and "larger scale builds composed of those smaller scale executions bringing to a global result"). The biggest difference, though, is that, because of real time and the infinity of possibilities, SC2 plays are way less refined than Go ones. You often have to take decisions on the fly and based on limited informations, and you can't have perfect execution, making for "errors", or non-perfect reading of the patterns. This makes the patterns extremely hard to study compared to Go. But if we had players playing with no reflexion delay and at an extreme level, SC2 would look a lot like Go, with patterns and developments unfolding and being readables (with perfect scouting, for example, the information is very close to total, and with perfect execution, a given engagement would always end in a given result with the same decisions being made). The human factor is way too big for it to be the case in real starcraft games though, and that's what makes the game so enjoyable to watch and so hard to play. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10139 Posts
I don't see why people compare turn based games with real time games. They are different beasts and require different areas of expertise. | ||
|
Tef
Sweden443 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 27 2013 00:18 eScaper-tsunami wrote: Neither because both go and chess have a finite of moves you can compute. The number of possible moves in Chess and Go are so large that this comparison really doesn't matter. On April 27 2013 00:21 Charlie.Sheen wrote: Out of these two options, Go is a better comparison, just look at TvT, that's exactly a Go game. And chess is just too simple compared to Go or starcraft. Just...lol. On April 27 2013 00:24 Avean wrote: So is Chess. You dont know what moves your opponent will do, same as in SC2. Are you serious? Do you play either game? Do you play any games? In SC2, you don't necessarily know what moves your opponent has done, or even is doing. Whereas in EVERY GAME IN EXISTENCE you don't know what moves your opponent will make. | ||
| ||
