The Elephant in the Room - Page 179

On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.

My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.

The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.

On November 30 2011 06:24 Almonjin wrote:


Hi! So as far as a "purpose" well, not sure what you mean. I don't intent to prove anything, really, just give some observations. The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means.

Actually I love BW, but I think in Sc2 the design decisions that were made will result in possibly a better game.

Strategic ability in BW doesn't pale to Sc2 atm, but I propose that it will in the future when the lower mechanics ceiling is reached by most top level pro's and Sc2 players begin exploring new avenues to win.

Sure devious players exist in BW, but for the most part only top pro's can consistently engage in this type of play while maintaining perfect or close mechanics. Sure devious players exist that have sub-perfect mechanics and win games, but this is a niche role and these people will lose to players like Flash that can do both.

So really nothing you said contradicts my argument at all.

On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.

My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.

The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.

On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote:
Disclaimer: I do not play nor follow BW anymore, and play/follow SC2 pretty actively now.

I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics.

The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels.

That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side.

On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote:
Disclaimer: I do not play nor follow BW anymore, and play/follow SC2 pretty actively now.

I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics.

The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels.

That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side.