EPT
I kid. But seriously, excellent write up and a very good argument of how competition in StarCraft 2 could be much better if there were better players transitioning from BroodWar to Starcraft 2.The Elephant in the Room - Page 185
| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
KentHenry
United States260 Posts
I kid. But seriously, excellent write up and a very good argument of how competition in StarCraft 2 could be much better if there were better players transitioning from BroodWar to Starcraft 2. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Honestly though, I haven't seen much indication that many BW fans have really given SC2 "a chance". Most of them seem to be repeating the 200/200 A-attack argument as if there was nothing more to it than that. Don't see why I should be so concerned about giving a game a chance when no one is willing to give anything they're not interested in a chance. Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. Generally speaking from my personal preference , I find it hard to play the game because it just doesn't feel right , the feel of the game and the graphics is what made me not interested in the game play at all , however that's my personal view ,every time I play the game I kept comparing it to broodwar and in my mind I have been thinking , okay if you really don't like it don't play it and yeah that's what I did I am back to broodwar. | ||
|
GreyMasta
Canada197 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:01 Sawamura wrote: Let's use some real life sport analogy for comparison sake , Take professional sports as an example compared to a accomplish PGA tour professional to an amateur , What are they playing ? Golf of course , however in comparison between the two players , The amateur in tournament pressured situation will falter , because mechanically speaking he isn't trained to deal with this kind of situation , Having a sound swing requires tons of dedication and hours allocated to getting the swing to work they way you want it to be , these can be used as an example for broodwar micro and macro mechanics plus game sense . An amateur golfer may have talent but can he do like what a pro golfer could do ? definitely not than every tom,dick and hary could just come to the golf scene and earn millions of bucks easily , Same goes to Professional broodwar , not matter how many hours ,I put in to the game , I could not even come close to any semi pro broodwar players these days , because the amount of hardwork they put in the game is just amazing , 14 hours of practice a day ? , 3 hours of sleep ? . Can I beat tiger wood now that I have better a golf swing ? nope I can't he's just miles ahead of me mentally ,physically and strategy wise through his superior game plan and scrambling. Show me a sc2 in house practice regime that encompasses such dedication to a game like broodwar pro gamers do . If BW's supremacy relies only on things like manual mining and smart casting, wow, I never played and watched the same game. I see human skill and prodigy in other fields than what a machine'AI can naturally do way better by itself. Hey wouldn't it be nice for golf engage the stamina of golfers by having them to walking across the place trudging in the bunkers with their clubs ont heir backs? Wouldn't it separate the true warriors of the green from all those lazy fat cart-huggers? Nope. We don't want to see pro golfers fail because they broke their ankle trying to climb a hill on their glorious walk to the green. We just freakin want to watch them FOCUS ON SWINGING, not to play a cross country, this is another sport! Let's try another funny comparisons: If non-assistance == Better gameplay Than Why not add those awesome feature to BW to make it an even better game, the better game ever created by man? - Remove Units pathfind. Having the AI stirring units for you to reach a position is for SC2 sissies. - Remove Patrol moves: What? You can't micro this simple stuff all by yourself? - Remove Voice feedbacks: Why do you need to be warned that something is happening? Aren't you supposed to watch the minimap or your supply count at everyfreaking second?!! - Remove rally points: Wtf is that noob stuff. Seriously. - When you click-attack an enemy unit your units now attacks it ONCE: Dragoon micro for every micro! - Remove control groups: Infinite groups <<<<< Groups of 12 <<<<<<<<< Groups of 1. Logic! - Remove player colors: Enters the new the meta game of figuring out by yourself which zerglings are yours! FUN! - Sounds are replaced with beeps and units by geometric shapes: The game was way TOO FANCY, Imma right? - etc. PS: I am not trying to turn BW bad!! I am just saying: Sometimes we easily critisize SC2 on removing some of the very same clunky gameplay aspects than the "ridiculous" ones I am making up above. It really happens. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
There are players out there in BW who have incredible APM, but you know what? In many cases they are no better than D on ICCUP. The strategic depth BW has is ridiculous and it continues to evolve with the new maps being released. Both SC2 and BW have a lot of depth. SC2 is still evolving. So is BW as we continue to get new maps to tickle our fancy. With that said, there is no need to mention strategy. | ||
|
DeepBlu2
United States975 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:50 aristarchus wrote: And the reason SC2 enthusiasts get mad at posts like this is that you didn't actually read the post you're responding to correctly. He didn't say BW was all about macro or micro. He said it was about strategy too. He just said that you could always have better strategy and still lose because the other guy had better mechanics. Yes, you could have a good enough strategy to make up for your bad mechanics, but you could also have good enough mechanics to make up for your bad strategy. And as the general mechanics of players improved, strategies that used to make sense became bad and needed to be reworked. Of course that's true in SC2 also. But because the interface is better, the marginal gains you get from good mechanics diminish faster, so the mechanical advantage someone needs to make up for a certain amount of strategy disadvantage is larger. So yeah, that means that as a percentage of the skill that distinguished between players, strategy was lower and mechanics were higher in BW. That doesn't mean there aren't amazingly deep strategies in BW. It means exactly what he said - that there's a higher entry bar before strategy starts to matter. If you aren't at least decent mechanically, the top players will always beat you, regardless of how good your strategy is. None of this probably matters much when you're talking about the spectator side of things - the pros will have good enough (or equal enough to each other) mechanics that the strategies come out. But it *is* a difference between the games, and it matters a lot for a casual player. That's incorrect though. The amount of skill that translates from strategy and mechanics is very different than what you guys seem to think in BW. I really encourage you to watch a gamee and just try and actually go through the specific details. I think you guys are confusing the overall structure of BW games a little too much. Flash, JD, Bisu aren't just on the top for 1-2 reasons. Bisu designed the PvZ build that revolutionized the game in such an immense way that it completely through off the metagame and has been the standard for 4 years. And he did that well having amazing mechanics. If mechanics are even easier in SC2, why would he not be able to do something similar, if not better? That is the point some of use are trying to make. Yes they're mechanic monsters, but they're also geniuses that can pick apart the smallest amount of details and put them to use. I'm confused what you are arguing though, do you think it is a good thing that a mediocre mechanical player should beat a strong mechanical player because of strategy? I think strategy should take place, but there has to be a limit. It's like, 100 troops should not beat 10000 troops in real life, that's just not realistic. But with good planning and positioning theres no reason 5000 can't beat 10000. Doesn't the casual player want to see mechanics though. If it's a TvT and guy A is at 100 supply vs guy B's 60 even casual players are going to pick up on and mock that kind of stuff. They will cheer on guy B's cool micro or strat, but ultimately even casual players are going to consider player A the better player. I'm not sure that made sense, and I might have just been going in circles. Look at it this way. Assuming Flash, JD, Bisu are the best RTS players in the world, they would have success in both BW and SC2. Their mechanics would be more displayable in BW, but I would disagree that their strategies would be better displayed in SC2 simply because of a lower skill ceiling. This is because I believe BW units are more microable, have more options, and are better designed. It doesn't matter what the skill ceiling is if the units themselves are just derp herp attack derp. Again, that is my and other's opinions. If you disagree, I suggest you check out some BW games. I like to think my opinion holds weight though because I avidly follow and analyze BOTH SC2 and BW. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
To clear up some misconceptions: - I have watched quite a number of BW games. Don't just claim I'm ignorant and dismiss my opinion of BW just because I watch SC2. - I wasn't saying BW takes no strategy or tactics (did you even read my post? wtf... bolded and underlined because like 4 of the ignorant responses thought this was my stance) - I wasn't directly equating chess and starcraft, I was comparing them on the fact that they are a 1 on 1 competition against another player. There are obviously difference between Chess and Starcraft. - Strategy is not "harder" or "easier" in one game over the other. I was stating that strategy will play MORE importance in SC2 than in Broodwar because mechanics is hence of LESS importance in SC2 due to being simpler. I'm NOT SAYING STRATEGY IS UNIMPORTANT IN BROODWAR. Due to the reduced importance of mechanics in SC2, players who contribute large amounts of time and effort to improving at SC2 will start to dedicate more time to the areas that result in the largest improvements, once mechanics have been sorted out to the point where there are diminishing returns in practicing it people will separate themselves from the crowd by being STRATEGICALLY and TACTICALLY superior. Yes, this can be done in broodwar too but because there is such a high skill-cap on mechanics a LOT of players dedicate themselves to having flawless mechanics. Yes, strategy can and win you games in Broodwar but when we get a few years into the games of SC2 strategy and tactics will win EVERY game because everyone is relatively at the maximum level of mechanical play. I knew there would be people blindly responding to my original post because it represented SC2 in an equal light to BW and some BW players are defensive like that, but god damn 10 responses in 10 minutes none of which acknowledged my entire point? Smooth... On second thought I'll respond a little more specifically @1Eris1 + Show Spoiler + - I'm not completely wrong, it was an opinion. - I never said BW was all macro and micro. It is, however a more significant portion of the game in BW than it is in SC2. - I have watched plenty of BW games. Did you even read my post? @SirKibbleX + Show Spoiler + You're making presumptions on my stance while ignoring what I'm actually saying. Yes, BW is harder mechanically. I NEVER said it means it is easier strategically. My post was that mechanics is a lot less important in SC2, hence players will differentiate themselves on strategy alone. Strategically, the games are THE SAME. However, mechanics in BW can give you a massive advantage over your opponent. There is no such things as something being "harder strategically" when comparing two complex RTS games. Because of this, people in SC2 will dedicate more of their time to the strategy side of things rather than the mechanics side of things. @Phyrigian + Show Spoiler + Re: your statement on bolded part 1: I was more so talking about year for year currently, not year 1 of BW vs. year 1 of SC2. I believe (warning - opinion not fact) that SC2 will develop more strategically over the next year (2012) than BW will during 2012. This could be argued for other reasons - being that the game has been out for a long time so it is more "figured out" strategically, but I'm not talking development of new strategies I'm talking about shift of importance from mechanics to strategy which I believe is caused by the simplicity of mechanics in SC2. Re: your second section. You seem to be overly simplifying SC2 strategy in order to favour your opinion that BW is superior. Yes, you can sum up a banshee as "harass" and then go on a long spree of the effects of 3 hatch muta when in reality you can do the same. I could call those mutalisks harassment. In SC2 the banshees can be used in such a diverse manner but due to the relative infancy of the game they're almost specifically used for killing workers. TvT - I send my banshee to kill workers and he sends marines to defend. I can kite and kill some of these off and if he backs off I can use his workers as bait to kill more of them, resulting in him having to pull marines to kill my banshee and I can kill more marines off. He can't do this forever because if he wastes enough marines trying to kill off my banshee then I'll have a marine advantage and can push that advantage to capitalize on it more. I can go cloak, I can not go cloak, I can build one banshee, I can build 5. Strategically, the games are equivalent, my post was stating that SC2 players will dedicate themselves more to improving strategically (it hasn't happened yet, people are still working mechanics because they don't have that perfected). Because of this emphasis on strategy it'll be improved on faster, I was never once saying BW was strategically inferior or that SC2 was better because of it. You sort of understood my point though, I guess. @Sawamura + Show Spoiler + I have watched plenty of Broodwar games, thanks. Unfortunately, you've completely misinterpreted my point which I'm unsure if it is because I didn't express myself clearly of if you lack reading comprehension. Either way, let me clarify: SC2 will be more strategy focused due to the relative simplicity of mechanics in that game. I never said there was no strategy or tactics in Broodwar. What I meant by that bolded statement is when you get two players who are macro focused (unfortunately not every game can include sAviOr). It because a matter of which player's macro eventually crumbles to that of the superior player. In SC2 in a few years I believe (warning - opinion incoming!!) that almost every game will be strategy based as macro will be near perfected by almost every player. Hence the strategy will become of more importance. Take note: I never said that strategy wasn't important in broodwar, or that the game didn't take strategy. | ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:57 GreyMasta wrote: If BW's supremacy relies only on things like manual mining and smart casting, wow, I never played and watched the same game. I see human skill and prodigy in other fields than what a machine'AI can naturally do way better by itself. Hey wouldn't it be nice for golf engage the stamina of golfers by having them to walking across the place trudging in the bunkers with their clubs ont heir backs? Wouldn't it separate the true warriors of the green from all those lazy fat cart-huggers? Nope. We don't want to see pro golfers fail because they broke their ankle trying to climb a hill on their glorious walk to the green. We just freakin want to watch them FOCUS ON SWINGING, not to play a cross country, this is another sport! Let's try another funny comparisons: If non-assistance == Better gameplay Than Why not add those awesome feature to BW to make it an even better game, the better game ever created by man? - Remove Units pathfind. Having the AI stirring units for you to reach a position is for SC2 sissies. - Remove Patrol moves: What? You can't micro this simple stuff all by yourself? - Remove Voice feedbacks: Why do you need to be warned that something is happening? Aren't you supposed to watch the minimap or your supply count at everyfreaking second?!! - Remove rally points: Wtf is that noob stuff. Seriously. - When you click-attack an enemy unit your units now attacks it ONCE: Dragoon micro for every micro! - Remove control groups: Infinite groups <<<<< Groups of 12 <<<<<<<<< Groups of 1. Logic! - Remove player colors: Enters the new the meta game of figuring out by yourself which zerglings are yours! FUN! - Sounds are replaced with beeps and units by geometric shapes: The game was way TOO FANCY, Imma right? - etc. PS: I am not trying to turn BW bad!! I am just saying: Sometimes we easily critisize SC2 on removing some of the very same clunky gameplay aspects than the "ridiculous" ones I am making up above. It really happens. Really your whole post doesn't sound logical at all , might as well make broodwar have a Red Alert 2 like interface than. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:06 Phyrigian wrote: Did you read my post? Please tell me you did and enlighten me on how i didn't address yours :3 sec, I'll edit in a personal response to you in a second | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:57 GreyMasta wrote: If BW's supremacy relies only on things like manual mining and smart casting, wow, I never played and watched the same game. I see human skill and prodigy in other fields than what a machine'AI can naturally do way better by itself. Hey wouldn't it be nice for golf engage the stamina of golfers by having them to walking across the place trudging in the bunkers with their clubs ont heir backs? Wouldn't it separate the true warriors of the green from all those lazy fat cart-huggers? Nope. We don't want to see pro golfers fail because they broke their ankle trying to climb a hill on their glorious walk to the green. We just freakin want to watch them FOCUS ON SWINGING, not to play a cross country, this is another sport! Let's try another funny comparisons: If non-assistance == Better gameplay Than Why not add those awesome feature to BW to make it an even better game, the better game ever created by man? - Remove Units pathfind. Having the AI stirring units for you to reach a position is for SC2 sissies. - Remove Patrol moves: What? You can't micro this simple stuff all by yourself? - Remove Voice feedbacks: Why do you need to be warned that something is happening? Aren't you supposed to watch the minimap or your supply count at everyfreaking second?!! - Remove rally points: Wtf is that noob stuff. Seriously. - When you click-attack an enemy unit your units now attacks it ONCE: Dragoon micro for every micro! - Remove control groups: Infinite groups <<<<< Groups of 12 <<<<<<<<< Groups of 1. Logic! - Remove player colors: Enters the new the meta game of figuring out by yourself which zerglings are yours! FUN! - Sounds are replaced with beeps and units by geometric shapes: The game was way TOO FANCY, Imma right? - etc. PS: I am not trying to turn BW bad!! I am just saying: Sometimes we easily critisize SC2 on removing some of the very same clunky gameplay aspects than the "ridiculous" ones I am making up above. It really happens. No one's arguing that certain things aren't redundant or unnecessary, instead they are arguing that certain things in SC2 are going a bit too far. What if you gave the golfer's golfballs that auto tracked to the hole?...What if you gave them clubs that could hit 500+yards with a light swing? etc | ||
|
BarbieHsu
574 Posts
I'm confused what you are arguing though, do you think it is a good thing that a mediocre mechanical player should beat a strong mechanical player because of strategy? I think strategy should take place, but there has to be a limit. It's like, 100 troops should not beat 10000 troops in real life, that's just not realistic. But with good planning and positioning theres no reason 5000 can't beat 10000. The difference isn't this big. Mediocre Mechanics/Strong Strategy should beat Strong Mechanics/Mediocre Strategy. Crudely, it's like saying I believe starcraft is a comptition where the brainy weakling should beat the musclebound average IQ guy. Preemptively, yes mechanics needs brains too; that's why "crudely" was used. | ||
|
Caladbolg
2855 Posts
When I watch SC2, I generally can predict who's going to win a particular battle at a particular point in time. Just from observing the armies, you realize which units counter which units, which units are more cost efficient, which units are going to be useless after a few seconds in a fight... This means that while I can enjoy SC2 quite a bit, at a certain point in time it becomes utterly predictable, to the point that I begin to prefer games with major tech switches (favorite pvp: Huk vs Naniwa @ DreamHUK with those game-changing DTs) over games that stretch out into long, macro games simply because just based on unit comp I already know which player is going to win (not 100% of course). In BW however, there are so many game-changing abilities. Last second Dark Swarms, massive Psi Storm blankets, clutch Emps/Irradiates... the list goes on. And it isn't just confined to in-game abilities. Perfect muta micro could lead to an obnoxious worker lead, which could then be destroyed by a well-timed Emp or focus-firing Marines. An amazing flank can kill a seemingly unstoppable Terran push. Stop Lurkers that destroy a thousand marines per spine. A good Zealot/Dragoon spread with well-placed Statis can break unbreakable tank lines. Storm/Reaver harass while fighting off a Hydra bust. You can never know what's gonna happen, who's gonna make a comeback, etc. SC2 has a few of these amazing moments (MVP vs Leenock), but they're hindered by, in my opinion, player skill. The multitasking level of someone like MVP or MMA, however good, is nowhere near Baby's or Bisu's. The micro of Hero or Huk is nothing to the micro of Jangbi or Stork. Even free. The macro of TOP or Bomber while impressive is nothing to the macro AND economic timings of someone like Flash or Best or Horang2, who do all that while micro-ing and fighting battles left and right (in Best's case, not micro-ing and A-moving). I don't mean to disrespect the SC2 stars, because I've rooted for them even when they were in BW, and I know that they were talented but just never really shone... but there truly is an elephant in the room. Someone like ForGG, a slumping A-team Terran who retired because he couldn't hang with the A-team, who we all know had started playing around 11 months ago on the ladder and topped it several times, who had just recently joined a team house (without the practice standards of BW teams), has just destroyed Polt, a champion, 2-0. A champion who played amazingly against MC several times (and kept eliminating him, lol). A champion who was incredibly underrated throughout his SC2 career. A champion who defeated the son of Boxer at the grandest stage. A champion with amazing micro and amazing builds. Destroyed him. With Banshees, a slow and delicate harassing unit. Something to chew on really. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:08 BarbieHsu wrote: The difference isn't this big. Mediocre Mechanics/Strong Strategy should beat Strong Mechanics/Mediocre Strategy. Crudely, it's like saying I believe starcraft is a comptition where the brainy weakling should beat the musclebound average IQ guy. Preemptively, yes mechanics needs brains too; that's why "crudely" was used. I'm confused exactly why this needs to be the case? It really depends. Plus how much does mediocre and how much does strong equal? It's too general to evaluate. | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:02 1Eris1 wrote: That's incorrect though. The amount of skill that translates from strategy and mechanics is very different than what you guys seem to think in BW. I really encourage you to watch a gamee and just try and actually go through the specific details. I think you guys are confusing the overall structure of BW games a little too much. Flash, JD, Bisu aren't just on the top for 1-2 reasons. Bisu designed the PvZ build that revolutionized the game in such an immense way that it completely through off the metagame and has been the standard for 4 years. And he did that well having amazing mechanics. If mechanics are even easier in SC2, why would he not be able to do something similar, if not better? That is the point some of use are trying to make. Yes they're mechanic monsters, but they're also geniuses that can pick apart the smallest amount of details and put them to use. I'm confused what you are arguing though, do you think it is a good thing that a mediocre mechanical player should beat a strong mechanical player because of strategy? I think strategy should take place, but there has to be a limit. It's like, 100 troops should not beat 10000 troops in real life, that's just not realistic. But with good planning and positioning theres no reason 5000 can't beat 10000. Doesn't the casual player want to see mechanics though. If it's a TvT and guy A is at 100 supply vs guy B's 60 even casual players are going to pick up on and mock that kind of stuff. They will cheer on guy B's cool micro or strat, but ultimately even casual players are going to consider player A the better player. I'm not sure that made sense, and I might have just been going in circles. Look at it this way. Assuming Flash, JD, Bisu are the best RTS players in the world, they would have success in both BW and SC2. Their mechanics would be more displayable in BW, but I would disagree that their strategies would be better displayed in SC2 simply because of a lower skill ceiling. This is because I believe BW units are more microable, have more options, and are better designed. It doesn't matter what the skill ceiling is if the units themselves are just derp herp attack derp. Again, that is my and other's opinions. If you disagree, I suggest you check out some BW games. I like to think my opinion holds weight though because I avidly follow and analyze BOTH SC2 and BW. I'm not arguing Bisu wouldn't be awesome at SC2. My guess is that he would be, though maybe not to the degree some people in this thread think. The point is that in BW, he was able to come up with this super revolutionary build only because he also had extremely good mechanics. If his mechanics weren't at that level, nothing would have worked the same way when he was playing and he wouldn't have been able to figure out that that build (when executed with excellent mechanics) is actually that good. It means that actually making strategic innovations is something that only a select few can even try to do. It seems logical to me to think that that means innovation has probably moved slower than it otherwise would have. As for whether a player with bad mechanics but good strategy should be able to a player with stronger mechanics but weaker strategy, I don't think we disagree in principle. Obviously it should depend on how much better the strategy is and how much better the mechanics are. And that's true in both SC2 and BW. It's just that in SC2 the weight is a little heavier on the strategy, since the difference in mechanics translates to a little less (since no one is *that* bad). Neither is objectively better. It's just a personal taste thing. I as a spectator prefer more strategy, but that's just my preference. When I talked about the casual player, though, I meant playing, not watching. I don't play enough to have mechanics anywhere near pro-level. I'm in diamond, and even there I have lower APM than most players. but my mechanics are good enough that I can get to the point where strategy matters. Obviously the pros would still beat me with almost any build, but the complexity of strategy that I can benefit from using is higher than it would be if my low APM was absolutely crippling. And for me that makes the game a lot more fun to play. | ||
|
Crisium
United States1618 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:08 BarbieHsu wrote: The difference isn't this big. Mediocre Mechanics/Strong Strategy should beat Strong Mechanics/Mediocre Strategy. Crudely, it's like saying I believe starcraft is a comptition where the brainy weakling should beat the musclebound average IQ guy. Preemptively, yes mechanics needs brains too; that's why "crudely" was used. You best find a turn-based strategy game for mechanics to not matter. RTS is all about on the fly decision making and multitasking ability, which is why we love it. | ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:18 aristarchus wrote: I'm not arguing Bisu wouldn't be awesome at SC2. My guess is that he would be, though maybe not to the degree some people in this thread think. The point is that in BW, he was able to come up with this super revolutionary build only because he also had extremely good mechanics. If his mechanics weren't at that level, nothing would have worked the same way when he was playing and he wouldn't have been able to figure out that that build (when executed with excellent mechanics) is actually that good. It means that actually making strategic innovations is something that only a select few can even try to do. It seems logical to me to think that that means innovation has probably moved slower than it otherwise would have. As for whether a player with bad mechanics but good strategy should be able to a player with stronger mechanics but weaker strategy, I don't think we disagree in principle. Obviously it should depend on how much better the strategy is and how much better the mechanics are. And that's true in both SC2 and BW. It's just that in SC2 the weight is a little heavier on the strategy, since the difference in mechanics translates to a little less (since no one is *that* bad). Neither is objectively better. It's just a personal taste thing. I as a spectator prefer more strategy, but that's just my preference. When I talked about the casual player, though, I meant playing, not watching. I don't play enough to have mechanics anywhere near pro-level. I'm in diamond, and even there I have lower APM than most players. but my mechanics are good enough that I can get to the point where strategy matters. Obviously the pros would still beat me with almost any build, but the complexity of strategy that I can benefit from using is higher than it would be if my low APM was absolutely crippling. And for me that makes the game a lot more fun to play. I guess it's your opinion, it's just my opinion that I don't see any more strategy in SC2 than BW, I actually see less. Oh well, whatever. I guess, just keep an open mind, and please try and watch and compare of matches between each of the two games sometime. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
Done, enjoy <3 I can't tell if I just didn't get my message across properly in the first post, or if people just didn't read and comprehend my post before responding to it. Hope I cleared some things up in my response. | ||
| ||
