PC Gamer Editorial - Page 5

On May 03 2008 05:27 fcnz wrote:


My god, be a bit more emo? Do you honestly think those retards have the mental capabilities needed to understand this game? Man, oh man. Go read their posts.... By the way, I in no way represent the SC community. I represent myself.

If those retards can't take the flak after doing such a piece of trash column, they should take a box of tissues, cry themselves to death and never write for a gaming mag again.

And honestly. Who the fuck cares what 20 readers from a useless magazine think? Ive read PCG pre Y2K and never knew they had a forum or cared about it. Most of these kids are only on the forums to brag about how much of a "monster pc" they have and how many fps they can get out of the newest eye-candy no-skill game thats the current flavor of the week. These people will never understand or appreciate esports. Definatly not the audience you want to go for. Personally my best results with converting people to watch SC are people who have played other esports before or people who just enjoy competition (including real sports) period.

Stop flaming guys, it doesn't help and makes our whole community look bad.

This has turned into a somewhat decent discussion so I'll pitch in my thoughts. This is going to be long, but I'd appreciate it if you could find the time to read it Dan.

For those of you who aren't hardcore Starcraft fans it might seem strange why we (teamliquid) are getting so upset over Dan's comments. His main point does seem very sensible: The more time you have in a game, the more time you have to think about your strategy.

A rather obvious observation, but clearly a true one. However, Dan doesn't stop here, he deducts from this general rule that Starcraft as a fast-paced game has little strategy and is in essence a clickfest. In his own words, you can 'toss strategy out the window'.

Now I have been following progaming religiously for 3 years, not playing myself but studying countless replays and videos of progamers, analyzing their playing styles, their build orders, their battle tactics and their overall timings. I have seen several revolutions in gameplay, have watched the best players of the time pushing the strategical boundaries of the game in a way nobody would have thought possible and have enjoyed countless hours debating with other Starcraft fans debating over minute strategical details.

So I hope you will forgive me for feeling annoyed that a professional gaming journalist would have the ignorance and the arrogance to tell me I'm wasting my time because 'it's about reflexes, and abilities-no higher-level thinking required'.

I do realize where his sentiments come from. At the Blizzard event he mentioned, he played Last Romantic, one of teamliquid's members who has already posted in this thread. Unfortunately their skill levels weren't evenly matched and by the time Dan had hatched 12 Zerglings, LR was running him over with mass Zealot/Thor.

I'm not mentioning this in an attempt to ridicule Dan, obviously his mechanics aren't as good as those of LR who has invested thousands of hours into Starcraft, but to illustrate why Dan believes that mechanics dominate strategy in Starcraft.

On a very low level (Dan's, sorry for being so blunt), mechanics do in fact dominate strategy. These players are struggling with even the most basic concepts of micro and micro and victory or defeat will be decided by who manages to build a few more tanks than the other.

But that is not Starcraft. Once you've learned the basic mechanics required to play this game the whole wonderful world of Starcraft strategy will open up to you. Even at its very fast pace, there's such strategical depth that the gameplay is still evolving, 10 years after its release.

You state the fact that build orders are important in a derogatory tone because you're imagining an Excel sheet calculating the best build order. In Starcraft, build order strategy is a beautiful thing, there is no best build order just like there is no best unit, every opening is a unique mix of economy, teching und unit building. Let me give some examples.

In one of the most anticipated Starleague semi finals of all time, Lim Yo Hwan vs. Hong Jin Ho, Lim Yo Hwan or Boxer changed his Barracks and Supply Depot slightly, sacrificing worker production to squeeze out Marines a bit earlier than usual, making his bunker rush more powerful. He won all 3 games in less than 15 minutes in the shortest series the Ongamenet Starleague had ever seen.

The Zerg Savior introduced a whole new aera of Zerg dominance to Starcraft. His mechanics were stellar, but that wasn't the main reason for his dominance. He understood the game better than anyone else, squeezing out small advantages at all times, always having exactly the right number of troops to fend off an attack while continually building up his economy, displaying fascinating battle tactics while never losing the big picture, his master plan of how to win the game.

We thought Savior's dominance would never end, until Bisu came along and once again showed the Starcraft world how many strategical nuances are still undiscovered. In an amazing display of skill, Bisu 3-0'ed Savior in the MBC Starleague Finals using corsairs and dark templars to harass Savior to his death.

It was an incredible display both of a new strategy and its unbelievable execution, multi-tasking at a level that we had never seen before. This is what Starcraft is all about, it is the mix of deep strategy and exciting execution. That is why the game has been so unbelievably successful as a spectator sport and why after ten years so many people are still hooked to it.

Playing the game at normal speed wouldn't change the strategical dynamics of course, but it would kill what is a big part of the game, the mechanics, the apm and the multi-tasking required to play it at a high-level. These mechanics are a prerequisite to one's strategies being successful, but they do not actually hurt the strategical side of the game, on the contrary, they make pulling off a certain strategy much more impressive.

Continue playing the slow strategy games you like, I'm sure they're a lot fun, but please don't belittle the strategical depth of fast-paced RTS like Starcraft. If you're not convinced, I'd welcome you to watch a few pro games with me and I can try to share with you why I still get very excited every time Lim Yo Hwan is playing.

On May 03 2008 06:54 Orome wrote:

On a very low level (Dan's, sorry for being so blunt), mechanics do in fact dominate strategy. These players are struggling with even the most basic concepts of micro and micro and victory or defeat will be decided by who manages to build a few more tanks than the other.

To 2: You are one of those newly registered users at PCG, posting against this article. What would make them pick you out as someone who is NOT associated with TL.net? Just assume there was the same situation, just exactly opposed. There would be a column on TL.net about some other game, a flood of users register and criticise the column with similar arguments. If one of them excelled through rudeness, childishness, personal attacks, wouldn't you be tempted to assume it is one of the traits of this group?

On May 03 2008 05:59 FrozenArbiter wrote:

If you flame them there in our name, I'll ban you here.
Sorry but there's absolutely no reason to have PCGamer staff think badly of TL.net.

On May 03 2008 07:10 fcnz wrote:
wow .... this article and thread are so retarded, I had to sign up and reply.

It's pretty obvious that the players asking for slower games are casuals, not to say complete noobs. Dan's article was lame and lacked insight. You obviously don't know enough about SC to comment on it, if this was some slow paced game like Sins, ok, maybe thats how it's meant to be played. But for you to critic SC2 for its pace is ridiculous.

...

It's kind of hard (and useless) for me to really explain these concepts to casual gamers who hop from game to game every time a new flavor comes out so I won't go on anymore, I don't really give a crap if you dont like my arguments or think they lack, I know from gaming experience that my opinion is right on this topic (so whine all you want or try to reply, if you think making SC faster is a problem, you're simply clueless).

This is the kind of noob thinking that annoys me so much, it's like the idiots who whined to valve for years to take walling out of CS 1.6

If you can't cope with it, you're simply not good enough. Go play "Hello Kitty Island Adventure".

By the way, where do I apply for a job on PCG so I can write mindless crap about games I know nothing of?

On May 03 2008 07:10 fcnz wrote:
Also, for the joy of posting the truth, I thought this guy summarized it well on TL.net

On May 03 2008 07:10 Chandrose wrote:
One of the best discussions I've seen on the board in awhile. No flame wars, and intelligent comments (for the most part).

When I first read Dan's article I was on board 100%, but now I'm second guessing myself. It's not that I've changed my mind, there is certainly validity to what he's saying, but there have been a few points made here that are valid as well.

The truth of the matter is this is pretty much all speculation. Is there anyway to measure whether players are thinking less on fastest? Not that I can think of. After watching a few recorded matches you can easily see these players aren't just throwing units at each other, they are micro-managing and planning their actions. Would they be doing more of this at a lower speed? Again, no real way to tell. It would be interesting to see two top ranked players go at it on fastest, and then watch them go at each other again on normal to see if we can notice any changes in their play.

My personal preference is a slower paced game. I feel it's because having more time to plan and execute my actions makes the game more enjoyable (or "real" if you will), but perhaps I'm just not capable of coming up with those same strategies faster. Who knows?

On May 03 2008 07:23 Last Romantic wrote:
It's a question of you, choosing to affiliate yourself with TeamLiquid, going and flaming other people under our name.

On May 03 2008 07:09 Boblion wrote:
Really good post orome, but you said two times micro instead of micro and macro .



Poor Dan wont understand

On May 03 2008 07:35 fcnz wrote:


Wait, so saying I was linked from here means I'm a full time staff of TL.net? Schweeet.

Shouldve made my PCG username TL.net-FCNZ then!

You guys have been contaminated by the PCG logic, lets not touch their forums anymore, something funky about it.

Anyways, I'm probably about to get banned, peace out, <3 Plexa btw

On May 03 2008 07:10 fcnz wrote:
What the fuck is up with threats of banning me? Am I not fucking free to use the internet? Because I am a member of TL.net means I can't take part in debate anywhere else because it risks your reputation? Jesus fucking Christ....

I now understand alot more what the people at sc2gg tried to tell me about TL, I'm relatively new to SC (but not to esports) and I kinda held TL high in my opinion. Now you threathen to ban me and talk shit because I express my opinion? Damn right I came from TL, doesnt fucking matter. This site has thousands of users. I read the article from here, it pissed me off, I read the PCG thread, got even more pissed at how they ignored all smart comments so I thought I'd give them a piece of my opinion. I am not a staff of TL.net and I do not post there under anyones suggestion or order.

Holy fuck, go ahead and ban me if joining TL.net meant losing my right to express my opinion on another internet forum.

And to respond to Aesop:


Yeah, I would if I was a retard. I've been called names by Americans before, should I be tempted to assume all Americans are fucktards? That's what your suggesting here. Because I flamed them and was an asshole and a prick (which I totally assume, these guys don't deserve any respect from me) does not mean that's how everyone on TL is. If they assume that, well roflcopters, gg.

On May 03 2008 07:53 Centric wrote:


You sir, are an idiot.

I hope you don't respond to all situations in the way you have on the PCG thread.

On May 03 2008 07:10 fcnz wrote:

I now understand alot more what the people at sc2gg tried to tell me about TL,