|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote:
The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round. Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc. It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better"
I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive.  Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue.
I think you made some really good points, but some of your aggressive statements made people totally ignore the good parts (like the whole strategy and mechanics part) and only focus on the aggressive parts.
|
Yup,
All the good stuff continues to get buried by people who nitpick and cannot keep their emotions out of it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:45 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? First-person shooters are more or less about shooting. Real time strategy games aren't really about mining. You could make a case for limited control groups, but I don't think a game without automine is excusable any more. Do you think that you should have to send a worker back to the patches manually each time it mines a load? Of course not. It would be ridiculous. It would increase the skill cap, but it would be ridiculous. The difficulty of the mechanics of a game is in no way directly related to its quality. The reason smart-casting is bad is not simply that it reduces the skill involved in casting, but that a game with harder casting is the more desirable one (more fun to play and watch). This is not universal at all. The game in which each mining trip requires its own command is not a good game, because a game with harder mining is not better.
implying macro and econ management in bw is about mining is so silly it should already shame you into submission. `
|
On November 30 2011 15:05 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote:
The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round. Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc. It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better"
I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. I think you made some really good points, but some of your aggressive statements made people totally ignore the good parts (like the whole strategy and mechanics part) and only focus on the aggressive parts.
Sorry, I get a little too involved in these discussions and I find it hard to refrain from making some (unnecessarily) harsh/strong statements. I'll try to tone it down in the future.
|
Starcraft 2 is an amazing game.
|
Your name doesn't leave much to the imagination. 
|
To me as a spectator the biggest problem I have with SC2 is that the units all take more supply than BW so the battles are smaller or more concentrated. Granted some of these units work differently, but...
BW-SC2
Siege tanks 2- 3
Medic/vac-1- 2
Infantry 1- 1 or 2
Hydra 1-2
Reaver/Collosus 4-6
etc.
So while players did trade supply armies it wasn't always because they had reached 200 supply and had nothing better to do with their army they could trade at lower supply values mainly. Also more units to control the map which is part of the reason BW can be played on large maps and still be exciting. Still find SC2 interesting to watch though.
|
I like how this thread got bumped b/c forgg owned polt in the gsl and it instantly turned into a bw v sc2 flame festival.
|
On November 30 2011 15:04 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 14:52 jarf1337 wrote:
I watched flash vs jahoon(sp?) live the other evening. It's the first time I've ever watched live BW and it felt really simlar to SC2. Flash turtled up as terrans do, the other guy applied some pressure that failed to break him and flash rolled him over with tons of tanks. I think all of this arguing is silly, since they both provide good entertainment for RTS fans. Really not a good example my friend. Did you participate in the LR thread? I gave plenty of reasons why that game wasn't very good as did many others. I do agree with you on the fact that both entertain me as well, but that game you wrote about wasn't very fun to watch. In fact, it was flat out painful.
It wasn't painful to people who have played Terran and understand how difficult the things Flash was doing were.
|
I can't tell if that's a real elephant. Oh my goodness
|
On November 30 2011 15:40 J1.au wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 15:04 StarStruck wrote:On November 30 2011 14:52 jarf1337 wrote:
I watched flash vs jahoon(sp?) live the other evening. It's the first time I've ever watched live BW and it felt really simlar to SC2. Flash turtled up as terrans do, the other guy applied some pressure that failed to break him and flash rolled him over with tons of tanks. I think all of this arguing is silly, since they both provide good entertainment for RTS fans. Really not a good example my friend. Did you participate in the LR thread? I gave plenty of reasons why that game wasn't very good as did many others. I do agree with you on the fact that both entertain me as well, but that game you wrote about wasn't very fun to watch. In fact, it was flat out painful. It wasn't painful to people who have played Terran and understand how difficult the things Flash was doing were.
Jaehoon didn't do shit the entire game man, and Flash walked all over him. Most of Jaehoon's units were on hold position the vast majority of the time. Highlights for Jaehoon reaver scored two tank kills before dying and one storm hit a cluster of tanks, but didn't kill them.
What Flash did that game was nothing special for him. Jaehoon was mystified and kept sending small groups of goons and lots to their death, or just didn't move them at all and let them die on hold command.
I repeat nothing special about that game. Jaehoon never applied pressure. Expo like mad. Flash and him cap. Flash wins upgrade war moves out and just steamrolls Hoon while a pack of vultures kill one expo at a time regardless of the cannons. Hoon never protected shit.
If you want to bring this topic up again, please do so in the LR thread?
With that said it was a bad game. Out of all the games last night I don't know why anyone chose to bring that one up. Oh wait because he said it was one of the first BW games he watched and said he thought it was nothing special and he was right (in terms of what actually happened; not the skill level it takes). Every other game was more entertaining last night.
|
On November 30 2011 15:53 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 15:40 J1.au wrote:On November 30 2011 15:04 StarStruck wrote:On November 30 2011 14:52 jarf1337 wrote:
I watched flash vs jahoon(sp?) live the other evening. It's the first time I've ever watched live BW and it felt really simlar to SC2. Flash turtled up as terrans do, the other guy applied some pressure that failed to break him and flash rolled him over with tons of tanks. I think all of this arguing is silly, since they both provide good entertainment for RTS fans. Really not a good example my friend. Did you participate in the LR thread? I gave plenty of reasons why that game wasn't very good as did many others. I do agree with you on the fact that both entertain me as well, but that game you wrote about wasn't very fun to watch. In fact, it was flat out painful. It wasn't painful to people who have played Terran and understand how difficult the things Flash was doing were. Jaehoon didn't do shit the entire game man, and Flash walked all over him. Most of Jaehoon's units were on hold position the vast majority of the time. Highlights for Jaehoon reaver scored two tank kills before dying and one storm hit a cluster of tanks, but didn't kill them. What Flash did that game was nothing special for him. Jaehoon was mystified and kept sending small groups of goons and lots to their death, or just didn't move them at all and let them die on hold command. I repeat nothing special about that game. Jaehoon never applied pressure. Expo like mad. Flash and him cap. Flash wins upgrade war moves out and just steamrolls Hoon while a pack of vultures kill one expo at a time regardless of the cannons. Hoon never protected shit. If you want to bring this topic up again, please do so in the LR thread? With that said it was a bad game. Out of all the games last night I don't know why anyone chose to bring that one up. Oh wait because he said it was one of the first BW games he watched and said he thought it was nothing special and he was right (in terms of what actually happened; not the skill level it takes). Every other game was more entertaining last night.
That game was terrible and it just showed why Jaehoon is trash who gets lucky by doing dumb cheeky shit.
|
On November 30 2011 06:44 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 06:33 Danzo wrote:On November 30 2011 06:24 Almonjin wrote:On November 30 2011 05:03 Kimaker wrote: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. It is the mixture of mechanics with strategic capabilities that I find impressive and fun to watch about BW. Day[9] said it best, you have to have the dexterity of a classically trained pianist and the mind of a chess grand master. I've reread your post a few times and I'm not sure what the purpose of it was. Okay, I get it, you don't like BW. However, you seem to be insinuating that in BW strategic capability pale's in such a way next to mechanical ability that it can't compensate against someone with superior mechanics. You are wrong. As of now those "devious" players you speak of exist in BW, and can be found in a large cluster on ACE right now. As a whole that entire team is likely mechanically inferior to many of the other players on other teams. But they win. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289679Perhaps a bit early in the season (definitely early) but it makes a good point about teams without mechanical monsters on it, but very savvy players. I guess my rebuttal is, what? How and where are you getting your intimate knowledge of BW from? I don't understand what your point is, so I've made my attempt to respond to what I perceive to be your point. 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. "The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means. " No it's not . In fact the only argument you gave was about mechanics, which was a flawed one. You still haven't answered most questions and gave a true metaphysical response about Brood war's game design. Just a bunch of mechanics babble. I thought I was perfectly clear, but my point obviously clashes with your feelings on the subject or we've arrived at some kind of mental impasse that I don't think can be resolved via arguing on an internet messageboard. Also, as a Philosophy major I feel obligated to point out that "metaphysical" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. I can't see any reasonable way in which you can connect that term to this debate. For further reference, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
No you're point was about mechanics hindering strategy in Brood war. You haven't explained why. And when I say "metaphysical" it's a general talk about game design and strategy. But thanks for the link.
|
Live Report thread man. (We're getting completely off-topic)
This isn't the place to really discuss that one game.
|
What I don't understand is the group of people who were disappointed in SC2 for including features such as automine, MBS, better unit pathing, larger control groups, etc. Those features of BW ended up working ok for pro BW players, but for the average gamer simply moving their army across the map could be a headache. The only reason BW's difficult mechanics have merit is simply because in the context of that game it all worked. This doesn't mean they are good features in and of them selves.
The macro tasks that SC2 and moreso BW make you perform (building supply, queuing workers and units, the idea of building so many workers in the first place) place those games on different parts of a spectrum. They serve to make you think about your base and your economy instead of just letting you follow your army across the map.
True, watching Jangbi pull off a ton of storms is impressive because of the insane difficulty of the act, but does that make it a better game? Better for who? Imagine if Chinese checkers was played with spinning tops. The basic "macro" of the game would be maintaining all your tops in a spin. Maybe instead of 10 tops there are 6, iono, go with it. Anyway, in this case, the act of someone jumping their top in quick succession would be impressive because of the mechanical difficulty of it. Does that make it a better game though?
All in all, they are both enjoyable games, fun in different ways. In BW my macro is decent but my micro is hell. I get a large army that can decimate my opponent by keeping my money low, but i struggle to just get them to move out and kill my crippled opponent. I have like 100 apm, max. To me they are very different, because in BW I am actually amused by the terrible pathfinding sometimes. SC2 is fun in it's own, fast paced way.
In summation: There is no point to talk about which is better or worse. I speak here only to dissuade people from believing the fallacy that more difficult >> more skill >> better competition >> better game.
|
It's amusing to see people constantly saying sc2 has more room for strategic involvement cause of the lower skill ceiling but in actual fact when you look at the units, BW positional units allow for far more complex strategies compared to the few in SC2. Hope HOTS will change this for SC2.
|
On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:
It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects.
SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other.
SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent.
Oh, damn.
by your analogy, even golf matchplay is like chess
golf: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other.
golf: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent.
also, i hope you noticed that in chess you have identical access to information as your opponent as well as chess is 100% strategy. i still don't understand how you can't see there is no correlation between SC and chess..
|
Rucho the average gamer as you say got used to it. It's not really a headache once you work on your execution just like any other rep.
The principles work. More games will come along that try to repackage them in whatever manner they see fit.
They are certainly different and don't play the same.
As a spectator, when a player like JangBi does such things the 'wow factor' is heightened because many of us know what it takes to do such things. When you know, it makes it that much more incredible. It's a symphony of fire. It makes us appreciate them more. That and when you pull such feats for yourself it's empowering.
Like I said before, I enjoy both and I cannot wait to see what effect HotS and LotV has. I just hope it brings some elements and dynamics WoL was missing.
With regards to your last statement, the higher the skill ceiling the better.
|
|
|
On November 30 2011 18:16 bikefrog wrote: Leenock will prove you wrong 
what wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
