It's no question that the big battle micro in Starcraft 2 is just not the same. Given, it's not a straight out 1a ranged war like many like to complain, but there are some elements of anticipation, excitement, and grace that just aren't there. This article will attempt to examine this phenomenon, look at it under a microscope, if you will, and explain those little things that just don't play out quite right.
In the Beginning…
In the beginning, when the Marine first donned his helm and suit of armor, when the first Zerglings hatched and slowly crawled across the creep on wobbly legs, when the Zealots were still finding their voice, their anthem, and their battle cry, there were two fundamental pillars of solid play. The first involved the production of these little creatures. The second concerned their control – their fighting prowess. And we saw that the production was good, and separated it from control. And we called the production “macro” and the control we called “micro.”
The hands of God...
The Two Fundamental Pillars
Since the conception of RTS games, management and control have coexisted. While fraught with countless differences, they have long maintained a delicate balance and harmony. But these differences are the key to explaining the unparalleled success of our ancient yet beloved game, Starcraft: Brood War. First, micro is the performance while macro is the preparation. Micro is what the audience sees, the culmination of countless hours of hard work and rehearsal. It’s the flashy explosions that make Starcraft the spectator sport it is today. Macro is that hard work, that behind-the-scenes toil that escapes the casual spectator, but is appreciated by the experts. The casual spectator merely sees the end product, the massive army, perfectly composed, and watches it steamroll the pitiful opposition. But all of the perfectly timed production facilities, scouts, and cut workers are just beyond his grasp. Second, micro is a conversation while macro is talking to yourself. Micro is dynamic – it’s the interaction, the clash, the brawl between two opposing parties. Macro, on the other hand, is static. All you need are a stopwatch, a list of timings, and a computer. That said, much like no one watches you macro by yourself, no one watches you micro against a computer. And, in the end, you would prefer to micro against an opponent instead of a computer as well. It’s the tension, the sweat, and the fighting spirit that make big battles so fun to watch, and to play.
One is the king of micro. The other is the king of macro. And bananas.
A Dynamic Game
Brood War has always been about dynamics. The game has been growing and developing ever since its conception over a decade ago, and even today, the best of the best are taking the game to new and higher levels of perfection. But that doesn't mean that micro has just now hit its stride. Quite the contrary, the Golden Age of micro was at the very dawn of Brood War's long and glorious years. A word from our wise old moderator Plexa: + Show Spoiler +
Micro in SC has always existed and it is not the tricks we exploit in 2010 that define micro in SC. In fact, it wasn't until fast expand builds were popularized that you got the macro style you see today. The point is, micro is not a new invention. It's been something we've discovered from the get-go, not something we learned to gradually exploit over time. Examples: - Boxer's marine/medic control vs YellOw (and siva) - Boxer's dropship control vs Protoss - iloveoov's three-way split avoiding lurker spines - intotherainbow's reaver usage (in 2001) - intotherains spell use - Reach's mudang storming - Kingdom's probe control - Julyzergs mutalisk micro (pre-larvae trick) - Nada's vulture harass - etc
Indeed, micro is no recent development. But plunging straight into this vast ocean is a daunting task, so let’s shrink down to a smaller scale (or larger scale, if you’re a cartographer), and observe the complex interactions between units themselves. Each army has its own “fighting style.” A lurkerling army can set up a nice defensive position or can go in for the kill with a massive flank. A siege line slowly pushes towards its opponent’s base. And a Protoss ball of death just sort of attack-move rolls along. Similarly, the units and their abilities, themselves, are dynamic. As many people have mentioned before, they are game-changing as well, and, some would say, overpowered. Think about it: a spell that makes your burrowed attackers invincible; a thunderous area of effect spell that kills just about everything; an ability with three charges that can inflict massive damage, for just 75 minerals (plus a solid fighting and harassing unit to boot). As I like to put it, Brood War is a potpourri of imbalances, and the use or abuse of these creates not only the balance of the game, but the skill ceiling as well (think dark swarm versus irradiate). But, much more importantly, they are interactive. Which means they can be feasibly countered by the opponent. And thus, the fast-paced micro battle ensues, the battle the fans are dying to see; the brilliant storms or storm dodges; the timely dark swarms or irradiates; the epic scarabs or nullification of reaver harass. This player-to-player interaction of imbalances gives us the wonderful dynamic that exists in Brood War.
Can I pull back my vessels before he scourges them before I can irradiate his defiler before he can cast a swarm before I can split my M&M around his lurker field? Good luck.
Dynamics. It’s what makes Brood War tick. Even though the number of viable units in each match up is relatively small (you likely would see the exact same units every game), the amount of outcomes is enormous. The way each unit interacts on the battlefield, the way each player must exploit these units to their fullest potential gives Brood War its immense depth and longevity. It’s not something just anyone can master. It requires smart thinking and quick and accurate hands, everything we admire in a progamer. But it takes the hands of a god to play this game to perfection, and a battle between gods is so damn beautiful to watch.
Riding the Wings of Liberty
Here we are, over a decade later. Our technology is faster, sleeker, more advanced. Likewise, Brood War has upgraded to accommodate the average gamer with respect to graphics and gameplay. You are now immersed in a beautiful, crisp world where units are unquestioningly obedient, their pathing smart and straightforward. “I’m in heaven,” you think as you take a long and refreshing look around. ...or are you?
Looks so pretty!
Remember those two key components that made Brood War exciting and fun to watch? Unit potential and dynamics. Liquid`Drone's wonderful article "Power Overwhelming" covers what I have shamelessly dubbed “unit potential” quite nicely. Though units in SC2 are generally bigger, tougher, and attack faster and with more damage, there are a few things they have lost in the transition: game-changing spells and strong splash damage. And with this loss, the potential and dynamics of the game has deteriorated as well.
Back in Brood War, you had a nice counter interaction between clearly overpowered spells – irradiate and dark swarm, EMP, stasis field, and recall, psionic storm and, well, storm dodging and mutalisk sniping. Fast forward to SC2 and the emergence of autocasting, and the dynamics and unit potential are changed entirely. First, many spell interactions are no longer possible. Storm dodging is a thing of the past, as a pack of templar can deplete their energy in rapid succession faster than enemy units are physically able to move out of the damage radius. Spells like fungal growth suffer a similar fate. And then there are the new spells. Force field is a prime example of a spell that shuts down dynamics instead of promoting them, because, aside from a high-tech massive unit ramming into them, there is literally no way for an opponent to micro against force field. The success or failure of the battle, then (especially in the early and mid game), depends solely on a single player, and how well he places his force fields, while the other player can only sit back and watch. Compare this to even a terribly underused spell like disruption web, which forced more micro from the opponent, as well as created a positional advantage, and the difference between the two games is clear. And, with spells so much easier to handle, it’s blatantly obvious that a nerf is needed. But with the nerf to spells comes a terrible price – a single spell caster’s unit potential is decreased considerably. Again, look at high templar. No amount of SC2 high templar will ever be able to match the devastation and havoc Jangbi's few could wreak on a tank line. No amount of infestors will change the a game as much as GGplay's defilers did versus Iris. And with the dumbing-down of spell casters, we lose one more important thing: key timing windows. Remember in TvZ when all the Zerg had to do was hold out until a single ability finished before he could turn the entire game around? Remember how nail-bitingly exciting it was to watch those old Savior games where he would stall and stall until the very last second? Or the hydra bust that comes right before storm finishes? Or the siege mode and mines that come out just in time to stop the early Protoss aggression? Such hit-or-miss precision, such tense anticipation is no more.
A similar phenomenon exists with the reduction of splash damage. We have gone from the lurker to the baneling, from the corsair to the phoenix, from the reaver to the immortal and colossus, from the spider mine to the, well, nothing, and from the archon to the pitiful ball of a unit that goes by the same name. In Brood War, splash damage was a double edged sword. It forced micro from both you and your opponent (manually targeting to maximize damage versus splitting your army to minimize damage), but it also exponentially grew in power, such that a critical mass was with ranged splash units existed at surprisingly small numbers. The point? Splashing units in small numbers are great in that they encourage battle dynamics, but a large number of splashing units is hard to balance. So, with SC2, the units lose much of their splashing ability and effectiveness to compensate for easier control and smart AI. And even then, you can still see the tremendous power of splash units en masse. Just take a look at all the “Terran mech imba” threads that clutter the strategy forum. For balance’s sake, there’s no way you could argue against Blizzard’s decision of watering down splash damage. But with that decision, you will no longer bet on how many kills a reaver harass will net, or watch one of the most brilliant timing attacks in Starcraft history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmb344E7ms
O nostalgia...
The sad and simple truth is, with a more sophisticated game engine, we’re getting less gameplay possibilities, not more. This explains why SC2 seems to emphasize army compositions, whereas Brood War emphasizes army control. SC2 is a beautifully designed game, and it’s wonderful to watch. But, in the end, I must echo the sentiments of those old nostalgic forum veterans who restlessly complain about the distant past. “It’s just not the same. The excitement is gone.”
A big thanks to Plexa, heyoka, and Liquid`Nazgul for their invaluable insight and support and to flamewheel and harem for the pictures.
Good read. Very intereseting points about why SC1 was great, I hope we can find enough little tricks in SC2 that will make it interesting. Also if not theres always the expansion to hope for. Thanks for taking the time to write this!
What many of us have feared since the beginning seems to be coming to shape more and more specifically and it's depressing... but at least the game is still fun :p
I don't know if it's so much that the game less exciting,
but right now the reason why i don't watch (rarely watch) live matches/VODs of sc2 is because Korean progamers/teams haven't adapted sc2 yet, not because there's less tricks/focus on army control.
one perk i have about watching BW is watching my favorite Korean pros play, and watching proleague teams play. it just seems more grandiose than watching the current sc2 scene.
i still watch some sc2 games, and follow it (i.e. check results of tourneys), but until there's the fun factor of teams and leagues, i don't think i'll be able to fully immerse myself into the "viewing" side of the game.
a dramatized comparison would be watching regular people in my neighborhood play basketball at a random park, and watching the NBA. i prefer watching the NBA. note: i'm not complaining about the skill, it's just the fun of watching teams and famous players on teams playing vs each other. i'd totally love it if the US or Europe or wherever made team leagues and established a system.
Great read. Yes, while I love watching SC2, I hope Brood War continues on. As long as there are people in ICCUP, I'll be playing. I really hope both games can co-exist for a while, but I'm not sure.
[EDIT] I just finished watching the youtube VODs. That is why I love BW. Really. I mean, I'm sitting here in front of my laptop and the adrenaline really gets going. I remember watching a BW game on arirang (sp?) and this one scarab took out like half the zerg's army. It got something like 12 kills in 1 second. Totally stuff you scream about
Really nice article. It explains a lot of points that I haven't been able to explain to myself or others - I just felt it. Brood War is the only game I've ever played that has a gameplay I consider beautiful.
I completely agree. Much of the new abilities seem to offer no counter to when they are used.
Having ones army cut in half by forcefields and then killed leaves one with such and utter sense of helplessness.
It seems that Blizzard developed some beautiful looking abilities that don't really add to the necessity of skilled management, but rather make it easier to cast 5 storms at once, or emp a bunch of units in less than a second.
Perhaps there could be ways to fix some of these things, like perhaps giving forcefields life points, or making it so that spells have a delay timer on them if they are cast grouped...
Good read, however I do think there is potential for that kind of stuff to happen in SC2, I just don't think people have got good enough at the game yet.
I've seen videos of baneling carpet bombing, thor drops and other tactics that have been just as devastating as most of the things in those SC1 vids, there was one Idra move where he mind controlled a bunch of his enemy's templars and reverse stormed his entire army to turn the tide of a battle.
I honestly think we will have the same jaw dropping moments in SC2 as we did in SC1, the difference is that there's been 10 years of practice and pro gaming footage of one game compared to barely 3 months of the other.
I really hate complain news posts like this. Because personally I dont think debate is encourged just because how massive it is and just because it is a news post.
I mean its hard to predict SC2. Its really hard how its going to turn out. I mean the only reason I think micro was prevalent at first is because we didnt know how good macro was. I mean what do you tell a new player to learn first? Do you tell him to learn how to reaver harass or how to place his darkswarms perfectly? Of course not, you tell him to learn macro first and then focus on the micro.
Now that we know about macro, I think there is a lot of focus on it, just because we know how good it is, and just how much more weight it holds than micro. I dont think you can argue that. I think all of you can agree, that if you just have more stuff, all the fancy micro in the world wont save your opponent.
I mean I cant say that spells and splash havent been minimalized, I cant. I just I am saying, sure we've all played BW for 12 years, we never had something like this, its hard to say this is exactly how its going to turn out and its awful, especially in a BETA, if not within the first 5 years of the game.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how SC2 is as exciting TO WATCH, as BW. Gameplay wise, it's loads of fun to do, but as a spectator sport...it just doesn't do it as well as BW.
Well written, with something to harken to for those of us preemtively bemoaning the loss of BW, thx Saracen.
I couldn't agree more with this article, perfectly sound logical arguments, albeit we haven't given SC2 the benefit of the doubt or a chance to "develop" regardless of how truly lacking the game play is. Thoughts on posting this article in the SC2 Bliz forums? If granted permission I'd love to, or anyone to post it for that matter.
But i definitely think that things are not as grim as implied in the article. No game can be specifically designed to encompass the beautiful interactions and gameplay of Starcraft BW as we know them now. It's up to the players themselves to create that. In Starcraft we had Boxer, and the amazing 10+ year run of the game definitely didn't hurt the evolution of the game. All that said; I for one have high hopes that Starcraft 2 will have the same sort of evolutionary process as it's predecessor, and grow to match the splendors of Broodwar. (however no game could ever be quite like SCBW)
It's not quite fair to compare a game that is very much in it's prime to the 10 year old RTS titan, name the greatest RTS game of all time.
Totally true, what do you think if Brood War got a massive graphics overhaul by some mods created byu some dedicated hardcore StarCraft fans. Great graphics attract alot of players, and once the players play it abit theyll get hooked once they see so much depth in the game.
Ofcourse there will be people that still say it's too hard, or my units don't go where I want them to go, but it would make it so appealing to many people, and ofcourse to do something this big would take months or even years. Just a thought though.
And a very well written article, I didn't even think of some of that stuff why i prefer Brood War... One thing I would like to add though is that there was there was a "Wow factor" in SC1 and it seems thats it's almost non existent in SC2.
I have literally never played a single game of Brood War or Starcraft 2, but as a spectator I cannot see your point. It's impossible to micro against Force Field? Really? Bit of a self-fulfilling prediction there, don't you think? Imagine if Boxer realized that Lurkers were invincible under Dark Swarm and just said 'fuck it, no way out of this. I'm playing Counterstrike'.
Seems like people are starting to blatantly spread propaganda now. Forever is a long time, you know? But I'm sure you can see the future. I've only ever seen these levels of bitterness in the fighting-game community. I just don't understand. Why do you guys hate on Warcraft 3 so much, then? That game's all about micro. I seriously cannot get myself to finish reading this. "There will never be..." "There will never be..."; there certainly will never be anything for you. Of course Ryu's fireball spam is unbeatable. Of course anyone who gets the rocket launcher instantly wins. Of course, of course, of course. It's the mantra of the loser.
It's very easy to imitate, isn't it? Everything's obvious in hindsight. Those progamers you mentioned? They spent a lot of fucking hard work getting to where they were.
I think a lot of you are judging SC2 in a way that maybe it shouldn't be judged. Blizz had to come out with the sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, but they couldn't release the same game. You can't honestly say you wouldn't just get bored and go back to SC BW if it was the same game as SC2, and new SC players would be wondering where the community was when they bought the game, and who needs a divide in the community.
While I appreciate your points about BW, I think you need to give 2 more time to grow as a game, it's still a baby, and still has 2 expansions coming. Vanilla SC was fine, but it didn't really come into it's own until BW (I was pretty young at the time so forgive me if my perception is wrong), give the new game a chance, see what changes come with the next 2 games, because right now everyone knows it's an incomplete game, even blizz, but they need something to sell us in the next 2 games.
I think the article is spot on. It reminds me of something Nony said during one of the state of the game MLG podcasts, he said something to the same effect. I really want to see the dynamics Saracen wonderfully brought out in SC2. I know this is now an old and possibly trite card to play, but I have two of them: less importantly, it's beta; more importantly, there are two expansions left. Blizz has at least two years to find that delicate, precarious, and oh-so-exciting dynamic in their re-envisioned game.
I'm not saying the article is jumping the gun at all. Actually, I think it's great to stimulate discussion on the topic, because after all, if the community only plays, who is there to call attention to what needs changing? I believe the community can understand Blizz's game with far greater sensitivity than Blizz can itself due to closeness and distance -- when you spend so long working on one project (as I'm finishing my MA thesis I feel this firsthand), there is a sense of pride and guardianship: imagine you're insulting some dude's daughter to his face and that's the idea I'm getting at. They're close; we're passionate but removed, if I understand the relationships right.
Anyway, right now I think TL is doing an incredible job with these articles to bring attention to issues that need attention. It's still early and Blizz has time to make corrections, and with carefully crafted clear constructive community-created commentary like this, we'll have the best game of the fucking universe.
Good write up however I've always felt that with the higher damage output, SCII becomes a game of terrible terrible mobility(Protoss Warp In, Zerg Creep Everything, and Medivacs are pretty much required for infantry) rather than terrible terrible damage as was the case of BW.
Let's not despair yet. I'm one of the ultra old-school guys that played SC before BW and BW is what introduced quite a lot of the micro and depth of SC. For example before M&Ms and Lurkers TvZ battles were extremely straight forward. And DTs are largely what led to terrans learning how to use spider mines properly in PvT. There is still a huge potential for SC2 to catch up to BW with 2 expansions on the way, and in the meantime SC2 is still more than fun enough to play while we wait for SC2 games to reach the art of BW.
I would say that, for example, force fields are extremely interesting. It's just on the current maps they play out wrong. There are big differences between current sc2 maps and the professional bw maps. I think that on a map with a wider center, allowing for more army movement and flanking, force fields will be a very interesting spell that will increase the dynamics and interactions.
Overall I fear that sc2 is currently being balanced on inferiour maps....
Great thread -- but I still feel like these sentiments are all based on nostalgia and the fact that SC2 is largely incomplete. In 2-3 years time when Flash and Jaedong are playing against eachother in Heart of the Swarm I really don't think anyone will be missing BW.
BTW I think you should give Zileas credit for Reaver Dropping micro as he won the BW beta tourney with it. And the original game changing Micro in SC was Blacklizard raping everyone in the original SC beta with scouts and shield batteries way back in 1997. If your point is that micro has always existed in SC I don't think you should use examples of progamers using micro tricks almost 4 years after the game was out; otherwise we could reasonably conclude we won't be seeing any decent micro in SC2 until 2014 =p
Excellent post, I agree completely. To those who are disagreeing by pointing out that BW had 10 years to develop, I think you're missing the fundamental differences between BW and SC2 that were addressed in the article. Sure, it would be premature to completely write off Starcraft 2's potential as a spectator sport, but it's also really naive to assume that, given enough time, SC2 will somehow produce the same excitement and awe as Brood War. The flaws with SC2 mentioned in this article have little to do with the development of the game's strategies. The negative effects of SC2's simplified mechanics and its resulting effect on game balance will always persist, regardless of how many years SC2 is given to develop.
The question is: Was it that wise of Blizzard to release the beta so early? I mean, I bet many people won't buy SC2 now that they have played it for a good while, the game is disappointing for many BW players.
I just played a crazy 2v2 in BW where I ended up sniping high templars with 3/3 cloaked wraiths, one shotting overlords and scanning for observers to finally attack with a group of battlecruisers vs a bunch of goons and cannons that were protecting the last remaining expansion. I don't know but I've never got a feeling like that in SC2, just controlling wraiths TvZ is more fun than doing any micro in SC2.
While thats an interesting read and I agree on a few points, I dont understand how you can make such a factual statement about a game that had 10 years to get where it is versus a game that hasnt even cleared beta. I know that has been beaten to death, but despite the posts above, I think its naive to say that SC2 doesnt have the potential to be a fantastic spectator sport.
There are still tons of timing pushes in SC2, there are still imbalances, the imbalances come from unit comp (as you mentioned) rather than spells. I fail to see how this is less dynamic. Different, absolutely, but I dont see how unit imbalances make for less interesting play then spell imbalances, frankly I would much rather see a good army comp and decent micro crush an enemy army rather than watching 3 Hi templar storm 30 hydras into submission, or watching a tank line killed by 10 zerglings and dark swarm (maybe others feel differently?).
I am just hesitant to make a claim like that when you nor I have any idea where SC2 strategy and play is going to take us. While I agree to some extent that there is less gameplay potential I for one am excited that games will be more based on tactics and unit play rather than who has more APM and can manage his control groups better. Dont get me wrong, I am and always will be a huge fan of BroodWar, The game has changed, thats for certain but I think its a little premature to count out Sc2.
Sadly, things aren't the same anymore as they were when BW came out... nowadays if a game doesn't get a lot of attention, it usually dies quiet fast. There's just too much competition. If people don't like SC2, people will go back to BW or try other RTS games, SC2 is not alone on the market anymore. It's a tough business...
The whole "new engine with sleeker graphics means the game MUST be better thing" is really starting to get old. I agree with a lot of the points, but that is really just bland. It just feels like hatred to anything that is new.
On July 11 2010 11:22 Sheth wrote: Good read. Very intereseting points about why SC1 was great, I hope we can find enough little tricks in SC2 that will make it interesting. Also if not theres always the expansion to hope for. Thanks for taking the time to write this!
I doubt they will nerf the game engine in the expansion though... But it never hurts to hope!
If you REALLY want all the old SC stuff, I'm sure someone will eventually make a mod using the map editor where everything gets set back to SC1 macro and SC1 units with SC1 stats. The little quirks will be different, so it won't be the exact same, but it'll probably be reasonably close. I think it'll also be kinda boring.
Everyone is comparing the *BETA* of StarCraft 2 to the *EXPANSION* of the original StarCraft, which had bajillions of patches until it got to the state it's in now. That seems just a little bit premature, doesn't it? Chillllll.
On July 11 2010 13:03 Lord_of_Chaos wrote: I would say that, for example, force fields are extremely interesting. It's just on the current maps they play out wrong. There are big differences between current sc2 maps and the professional bw maps. I think that on a map with a wider center, allowing for more army movement and flanking, force fields will be a very interesting spell that will increase the dynamics and interactions.
Overall I fear that sc2 is currently being balanced on inferiour maps....
Very true. I was thinking maybe we gotta wait for bigger maps like in proleague maps for BW n see how it plays out. Ive been watchin alot of korean proleague, n the maps are alot alot bigger. We just gotta wait for them to recreate the maps for sc2
I agree to an extent. Scarabs and their volatility, spider mines, psi storms, defilers dark swarm, all of that was very interesting to watch.
But a possible side effect (or even intended effect) of the missing "over-powered" spells of BW in SC2 means that it's a lot less possible for one misclick to lose a game. Maybe that destroys some tension as a spectator sport, who knows.
I'd have to agree that the attentiveness required to be comparatively decent to the next fellow in Brood War was a lot larger than in the current beta phase of Starcraft 2. However, as has been mentioned, ranted, raved, and beaten to death is the small, minute, minuscule thing that is the following.
--- Starcraft and its predecessor are 12 years old. --- Starcraft 2 and its three expansions are 0 days old. It is still in its beta phase.
To expect a legacy like Starcraft to be followed without flaw or fault is simply being naive. Starcraft took years to captivate the lives of millions upon millions of players and viewers. Starcraft 2 seems to have to do this before it ever hits the shelf. I understand the sentiments of needing to macro a marine around to make the most of its usage on the field. The desire to dodge that lurker shot, split the armies to avoid the mass tank damage that could potentially end the game if you so much as a half a second off. Give the baby of this Legacy time to grow into what we all hope it will be. To expect a child to have the same aspects as its parent before its even been given time to grow is, I'll use the word selfish. People are being selfish with the seemingly unwavering desire for starcraft 2 to simply be a polished up starcraft 1 in every aspect, good or bad. It seems that perhaps while what made starcraft one great, also poses a sense of.. arrogance to the newer generation of children that haven't had more than a decade to perfect what seems to easy when we watch. Let Starcraft 2 have a chance to apply that 'awe' factor that the original had. I'm sure there will always be "I wish this was like that" moments in games, but to isolate those who want to take part in the creation of a game that is, in my opinion, a legacy by which most rts compare themselves to, seems very selfish.
In closing, I understand most, if not all of what I am typing has probably been posted or said a hundred million times over on various threads, forums, and conversations with friends. Though I would hope that some will gain a little insight if I have covered something that hasn't been said before.
man i hate all this thought about "yea but SC2 isnt 12 years old!!!!"
it doesnt matter how old the game is. there is a competition between BW and SC2 right now, a competition to take up our free time. right now BW is out and costs 20$. SC2 is out and will cost 60$ in 3 weeks. basically you are all saying "yea BW is better but in a few years SC2 might be as good! just give it time!" is it unfair to compare the 2? absolutely not. Sure it has a lesser developed metagame but that doesnt mean i have to play this inferior game for 2 years until MAYBE it gets better.
basically BW is superior to SC2 right now in every gameplay regard except accessibility, which is where the masses of new SC2 users probably find most appealing (there is also probably the lot of people who like playing a game where most strategies are widely undiscovered, although that doesnt really apply to this comparison).
will SC2 improve and have greater dynamics over time? maybe. the expansions will add new units for sure, but even if they rival BW in terms of completely awesome game-changing units that are possibly the most exciting in the game, i have doubts that it will ever match the perfection of BW. a fun distraction for a time? sure, but it will just be like any other game i play for a week or 2 and then go back to my real game, BW.
I think the issue is, people are afraid to innovate the type of play that we have come to expect. A lot of people worked VERY hard to develop the level of play we come to expect in BW, Day[9] has done some very good games recently where I see the start of this "innovation" of play.
There were a few games where it was non-stop action, back dooring, and just general aggression that were wonderful to watch and obliviously took skill.
This is all not to say that the skill ceiling isn't lower in SC2, you don't have to fight the game to play it, your not fighting each unit to go up a ramp, so that lowers the skill ceiling.
Lets let the Korean Pros get a hold of this game for a while before we simply pass judgment on a game compared to one with 10+ years of aging. I firmly believe there will be tricks found, similar to how different a game SC vanilla was to BW is now.
On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote: I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand...
Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't.
Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc.
SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you.
Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today.
I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much.
Great read. I completely agree that all the exciting action has been depleted. In addition, I think it's boring to watch as well. After watching scbw for 3+ years, I'm still watching it. After a few games of sc2, I just can't get through the first 5 mins of the most exciting matches.
Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
On July 11 2010 14:51 Chairman Ray wrote: Great read. I completely agree that all the exciting action has been depleted. In addition, I think it's boring to watch as well. After watching scbw for 3+ years, I'm still watching it. After a few games of sc2, I just can't get through the first 5 mins of the most exciting matches.
If you're only watching the first 5 minutes, isn't it possible you are missing the parts that made the game exciting in the first place?
On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote: I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand...
Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't.
Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc.
SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you.
Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today.
I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much.
On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
I agree, there's a fundamental design change between the "everything is broken" school of design of SC1 and "everything is balanced" school of design in SC2.
In SC1 150 minerals in vultures have the potential to kill eight dragoons or twenty hydras (ggaemo style), 400 combined resources in templar or reavers can kill dozens and dozens hydralisks and floods of of zerglings besides, and a relatively small investment in mutalisks, lurkers, or defilers have the potential to dish out dozens of times their cost in damage.
All of these also have the potential to fail spectacularly and do nothing at all. It's not like that in SC2.
The years we've spent since SC was released were not just spent learning how to play that game - they were largely spent learning how to play RTS games. The best WC2 players on Kali, the best SC players at launch... players at that skill level would have trouble holding D on iccup today. The first day a player like Idra or Nony touched SC2, they were better at it than anyone was at SC for years. This is how far the RTS world has come since.
What I'm getting at is that all of these 'give it time' posts are ridiculous. Do you really think the top players aren't trying out every possible way to win? With players being picked up by eSports teams before the game is even released, you'd better believe they're trying every little trick they can to get the advantage over others. Despite everything though, they can't make infestors as game-changing as defilers were. They can't make skirmishes come as interesting as marine vs lurker or goons vs early terran pressure. There are limitations in place that simply cannot be overcome by 'figuring more stuff out'.
By the way, there's a terrible misconception going on here. It didn't take 10+ years for Starcraft to be an amazing and dynamic game to play and watch. In fact, we've enjoyed it for that long.
"If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. "
But why are the units trapped in the first place? There was crucial positioning involved. Also, I want to mention the addition of large units being able to break through forcefields. This isn't me saying "obviously it's now equal to brood war" amazingness - I'm just adding a new window of support for the already stated fact that Brood War has had 12 years of development. People are simply sanctifying and worshiping Brood War without giving SC2 a chance - these are NOT unchangeable issues - spell effects, cast speed, etc. are all changeable and rather simple changes in terms of object data. Spells can have game-changing effects: TLO's round in I believe the quarterfinals of the HDH proves this when fungal spores were used to great effect. Does it still have constraints on micro like the inability to move? Sure. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways to change that or move beyond that.
People are also making claims like "it just isn't as interesting." To me that seems incredibly odd to make such an absolute claim over a hugely subjective statement.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
And so many also have exclaimed that SC2 should have tried to be more revolutionary.
On July 11 2010 14:03 N(o)sarcasm wrote: I'd have to agree that the attentiveness required to be comparatively decent to the next fellow in Brood War was a lot larger than in the current beta phase of Starcraft 2. However, as has been mentioned, ranted, raved, and beaten to death is the small, minute, minuscule thing that is the following.
--- Starcraft and its predecessor are 12 years old. --- Starcraft 2 and its three expansions are 0 days old. It is still in its beta phase.
To expect a legacy like Starcraft to be followed without flaw or fault is simply being naive. Starcraft took years to captivate the lives of millions upon millions of players and viewers. Starcraft 2 seems to have to do this before it ever hits the shelf. I understand the sentiments of needing to macro a marine around to make the most of its usage on the field. The desire to dodge that lurker shot, split the armies to avoid the mass tank damage that could potentially end the game if you so much as a half a second off. Give the baby of this Legacy time to grow into what we all hope it will be. To expect a child to have the same aspects as its parent before its even been given time to grow is, I'll use the word selfish. People are being selfish with the seemingly unwavering desire for starcraft 2 to simply be a polished up starcraft 1 in every aspect, good or bad. It seems that perhaps while what made starcraft one great, also poses a sense of.. arrogance to the newer generation of children that haven't had more than a decade to perfect what seems to easy when we watch. Let Starcraft 2 have a chance to apply that 'awe' factor that the original had. I'm sure there will always be "I wish this was like that" moments in games, but to isolate those who want to take part in the creation of a game that is, in my opinion, a legacy by which most rts compare themselves to, seems very selfish.
In closing, I understand most, if not all of what I am typing has probably been posted or said a hundred million times over on various threads, forums, and conversations with friends. Though I would hope that some will gain a little insight if I have covered something that hasn't been said before.
I will reply to this post because you put a lot of effort into it. It's very well thought-out and structured (and respectful, lol), and it seems to sum up pretty much all the complaints pretty well, barring nextstep's comment about rather watching pros, Lord_of_Chaos's comment about maps affecting micro, and Hautamaki's comment about old school micro, which are all very good points points (as well as the point that there are two more expansions coming).
I originally wrote this article a while back, around when phase one was ending. SC2 is extremely fun to play. In fact, now that Beta is back up again, I don't play SC1 anymore. It's all SC2. I'll be honest: I like having drones that don't bug out, and that mine in a straight line, and stalkers that fire reliably. I like how silky smooth everything feels. I like the competing on the ladder, or messing around with friends. SC2 is a great game. And I'm not ashamed to say that I play it over SC1.
But the thing is, there just feels like there's something missing. SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro. You can't deny this fact. In the past 5 months, SC2 has developed more than SC1 has over 5 years. We've come a long, LONG way since the Beta first started. Our play has been refined over and over again. Just how much more that's going to continue, I cannot say. But I'll say this: the entire point of this article is to pinpoint the thing that seems missing in SC2. And that's interactivity. It's something that either exists or it doesn't. We're not going to suddenly "discover" how to be interactive with units and spells in 5 years, or when Korean pros move over. It's more of a tool that Blizzard can give us to work with. And in this case, they didn't (to an extent). I'm not blaming Blizzard for this. I just wanted to make this issue known.
I don't get it. You guys seem to just not like change and seem to be complaining a lot.
I mean one of your biggest complaints is that things are overpowered but you can overcome them by using either more overpowered things or simply micro. But now things are more balanced and there aren't things you have to overcome? It seems like such a bizarre argument. "Planes used to be SO much better because there was always that risk of dying. Now it's like it's stable and fun for most people, it's so lame."
I think this whole thing is more of a fact you've been playing Brood War for so long that you're not willing to accept a new mode of play. I mean if you've been playing the same game for a few years I can see why it's hard to change, but that's just the way works. It happens in sports too and you either have to get used to it or just quit, but stop whining!
On July 11 2010 16:03 PhilipJWitow wrote: I don't get it. You guys seem to just not like change and seem to be complaining a lot.
I mean one of your biggest complaints is that things are overpowered but you can overcome them by using either more overpowered things or simply micro. But now things are more balanced and there aren't things you have to overcome? It seems like such a bizarre argument. "Planes used to be SO much better because there was always that risk of dying. Now it's like it's stable and fun for most people, it's so lame."
I think this whole thing is more of a fact you've been playing Brood War for so long that you're not willing to accept a new mode of play. I mean if you've been playing the same game for a few years I can see why it's hard to change, but that's just the way works. It happens in sports too and you either have to get used to it or just quit, but stop whining!
This is the type of argument I despite more than anything else on TL. The vast majority of people who played BW before SC2 are significantly better than those who did not. Furthermore, we understand the game better than the average gamer does and we know how things work. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be dominating so hard at the moment. This may sound stuck up and elitist but it's fact.
Saracen's article does compare BW to SC2 and in a valid way. The game breaking elements that were present in SC1 like reavers, mines, swarms etc are all missing in SC2. The dynamic relationships discussed in the article are lacking. These are also facts. We know that this is a new game, but these things enhance spectator value and create a more interesting game. We are willing to accept a new mode of play, but it is fairly clear that there is room for improvement. If sc2 is just about whomever creates the correct unit composition then it is going to be a very boring game in a few years time. The elements in BW made it so that creating the correct unit composition wasn't always going to be the winning element - you could do things like storm drops, utilise mines effectively, use tricks like hold lurkers and whatnot to regain lost ground. These things are just not possible in SC2 at the moment - and indeed the game would benefit from having some of these elements introduced.
A good example of the different is TLO's colossus drop build which is a complete gimmick in SC2 and isn't really going to be viable long term vs the Reaver drop build from the early days of SC/BW which was a perfectly legitimate opening - and still is today.
We all love SC2, and we want to it to be the best it can possibly be - that's why we write these articles. Not because we're lost in the past wishing the game was just SC1 again. We don't want SC1 one again - but we do want the elements which made SC1 amazing present in SC2 - that was Sc2 can live for another 10 years and still be an amazing game like SC1. The points Saracen raises are things I hope the devs take to heart in the upcoming expansions (since nothing is going to change before retail i dont think) and we get to see some amazing units come into play .
As nostalgic as the article is, I don't see the point in stating things everyone who loves BW knows and then using it to say "the excitement is gone".
The overly-simple persuasive structure of the whole piece makes it seem like the author is trying to convince newcomers to TL that SC2 is nothing compared to BW.
Edit: Reading recent posts I see that this was made a long time ago when the change was still leaving some players unstirred; it makes a lot of sense now that it's in context.
I have been thinking about small scale micro battles recently and it seems to come down to two mechanics. Unlimited unit selection and smart casting.
The potency of storms and mutalisk harass need to be limited with the incorporation of these mechanics. Just imagine 25 stacked mutalisk harass or a dozen brood war strength storms going off at once. Transitions are hugely limited because of the need to weaken these spells.
The specific situation I was looking at was midgame protoss versus terran where P is rushing storm. The upgrade basically has no immediate affect on the marauder balls because 1 or 2 storms are too weak and the marauders are too efficient at dodging with unlimited select. Later storm becomes impossible to dodge because you can constantly blanket his army with smart casting. Blizzards answer to this was simply add in a counter unit, the ghost. Now it comes down to as you said unit compositions rather then army control.
I really don't see why taking these two mechanics out will ruin the game but I highly doubt blizzard will do so. Zealots in the midgame will be more effective since 20 marauders won't be able to kite all together. Forcefield won't need a nerf since casting 10 to walloff will be a difficult micro moment. Storm can be buffed so transition will be safer and you cannot infinite storm easily.
It's sad because in the BW scene no one ever played a "perfect game," no matter how extraordinarily skilled each and every contender was. I fear that because SC2 is so much easier to control, that mistakes for these players will completely become a thing of the past. Bisu will never miss a force field, nor will he never be able to cover an entire screen with storms in under a second. The potential for these "perfect games" could lead to a true competitive strategy game where build orders mean the difference between a win or a loss, which will become very boring to watch and to play after a while. BW was a lot like playing sc2 and counterstrike together, and with the lack of the counterstrike aspect apm requirements will be lowered, and perfect BOs will be found even faster (from what I see anyways).
EDIT: sorry, restated a lot of Plexa's arguement, but it's all true..
I teared up as I read this :'( Nothing can ever replace BroodWar in terms of gameplay. It really is a clusterfuck of seemingly imbalanced ideas that meshed together to form the most balanced RTS ever. You players who have never been into the BW scene don't understand just how much SC2 is lacking compared to BW... Threads like these make me sad. I want to tell myself that SC2 is a newer and better game thats just as good as BW, but the more i play and the more I watch VODS and streams i realize it will never be as intense as watching savior's last sunken colony die just as consume is done researching :/ I feel like a part of me is dieing with SC2 being released :'(
Though I agree with what the article says, you might end up being semi-surprised if you watch SC2 in 6 months. An illustrative example is PvT, with Dalailamer vs. White-ra (see replay thread) being a good example. Protosses are playing zeal/temps vs terran quite often. Terrans can do wonders with hellions here, which are microable vs. storms!
A lot of this will change (or feel camouflaged?) when new maps arrive, and it isn't just one battle that decides. Bigger maps will help a ton
edit: though I really hope that we see more of this in the expansion, as Plexa points out.
Agreed. What more can I say. I also like Plexa's post:
On July 11 2010 16:17 Plexa wrote:
This is the type of argument I despite more than anything else on TL. The vast majority of people who played BW before SC2 are significantly better than those who did not. Furthermore, we understand the game better than the average gamer does and we know how things work. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be dominating so hard at the moment. This may sound stuck up and elitist but it's fact.
Saracen's article does compare BW to SC2 and in a valid way. The game breaking elements that were present in SC1 like reavers, mines, swarms etc are all missing in SC2. The dynamic relationships discussed in the article are lacking. These are also facts. We know that this is a new game, but these things enhance spectator value and create a more interesting game. We are willing to accept a new mode of play, but it is fairly clear that there is room for improvement. If sc2 is just about whomever creates the correct unit composition then it is going to be a very boring game in a few years time. The elements in BW made it so that creating the correct unit composition wasn't always going to be the winning element - you could do things like storm drops, utilise mines effectively, use tricks like hold lurkers and whatnot to regain lost ground. These things are just not possible in SC2 at the moment - and indeed the game would benefit from having some of these elements introduced.
A good example of the different is TLO's colossus drop build which is a complete gimmick in SC2 and isn't really going to be viable long term vs the Reaver drop build from the early days of SC/BW which was a perfectly legitimate opening - and still is today.
We all love SC2, and we want to it to be the best it can possibly be - that's why we write these articles. Not because we're lost in the past wishing the game was just SC1 again. We don't want SC1 one again - but we do want the elements which made SC1 amazing present in SC2 - that was Sc2 can live for another 10 years and still be an amazing game like SC1. The points Saracen raises are things I hope the devs take to heart in the upcoming expansions (since nothing is going to change before retail i dont think) and we get to see some amazing units come into play .
This is so true. We do not want a unit-composition game.
I don't agree with the conclusion. Army control can make one win or lose a battle in SC2 right now. While I agree that there is a "one control syndrome" in many players right now, you are drawing conclusions from a couple of months of playing for a limited number of people with no real professional leagues running anywhere and an ever changing game (patches).
You took 10 years of gameplay for tens of millions of people and compared it with 3 months of playing for thousands of people.
On July 11 2010 15:11 QibingZero wrote:What I'm getting at is that all of these 'give it time' posts are ridiculous. Do you really think the top players aren't trying out every possible way to win? With players being picked up by eSports teams before the game is even released, you'd better believe they're trying every little trick they can to get the advantage over others. Despite everything though, they can't make infestors as game-changing as defilers were. They can't make skirmishes come as interesting as marine vs lurker or goons vs early terran pressure. There are limitations in place that simply cannot be overcome by 'figuring more stuff out'.
With that logic you may as well dismiss brood war as well as being immune to innovation?? I agree with Redmark's post, which was excellent.
It's NOT the engine that prevents gameplay options. The engine could easily support the BW EMP with travel time, dark swarm, irradiate. Spells could have a global delay to prevent blanket storming, or the storm radius and energy cost could be reduced so that it actually takes a ton of clicks to blanket storm an area. Force Field creating stale situations is not the fault of the engine.
All of these are design choices that have nothing to do with the engine and that could be changed easily and quickly.
A good article, well thought out, and it has made me reflect.
As time goes on and sc2 develops and players try new things, we may see creativity and dynamics of depth similar to BW, but perhaps with a different focus. The game is so young at the moment and who knows what will come as player skill develops and new options and paths are explored. Remember its not even released yet, judging it so early is a bit pre emptive. Even when BW first came out, no one could have predicted the creative and skillful micro mastery that is prevalent today.
Your heavy romancing of 'old BW' comes across as over the top imo.
Great post! I could watch that Cool Mine Booms video all day...
On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
While I agree with the OP, I disagree strongly with this view. The idea that the developers at Blizzard can systematically go through all the gameplay elements of BW, and pick out the ones that worked and the ones that didn't, is quite frankly ridiculous. I would say that emulating the perfection of BW is virtually an impossible feat, and anyone who went into SC2 expecting the developers to be able to do so, would, in all cases, be sorely disappointed. To expect that is both unrealistic, and unfair to the developers at Blizzard.
On July 11 2010 17:29 spinesheath wrote: It's NOT the engine that prevents gameplay options. The engine could easily support the BW EMP with travel time, dark swarm, irradiate. Spells could have a global delay to prevent blanket storming, or the storm radius and energy cost could be reduced so that it actually takes a ton of clicks to blanket storm an area. Force Field creating stale situations is not the fault of the engine.
All of these are design choices that have nothing to do with the engine and that could be changed easily and quickly.
It is the engine that prevents options though, the fact that it is so much easier to quickly and accurately cast spells means that pros will not have to train much to perfect their use, just look at some diamond league games with FF or blanket storms. Blizzard isn't going to add a global delay, they will just nerf the spell until it is "balanced" being cast over a 3x3 pattern. The engine itself is what imperfects the usage of "imbalanced" spells and micro moves, be it dark swarm, stasis, or even muta/wraith micro.
On July 11 2010 17:29 spinesheath wrote: It's NOT the engine that prevents gameplay options. The engine could easily support the BW EMP with travel time, dark swarm, irradiate. Spells could have a global delay to prevent blanket storming, or the storm radius and energy cost could be reduced so that it actually takes a ton of clicks to blanket storm an area. Force Field creating stale situations is not the fault of the engine.
All of these are design choices that have nothing to do with the engine and that could be changed easily and quickly.
It is the engine that prevents options though, the fact that it is so much easier to quickly and accurately cast spells means that pros will not have to train much to perfect their use, just look at some diamond league games with FF or blanket storms. Blizzard isn't going to add a global delay, they will just nerf the spell until it is "balanced" being cast over a 3x3 pattern. The engine itself is what imperfects the usage of "imbalanced" spells and micro moves, be it dark swarm, stasis, or even muta/wraith micro.
I think the point is that smart-casting in its current implementation is not an inherent feature of the SC2 engine but a feature that has been put into the interface on top of the engine. As such, fixing it is not an issue that should be hard to rectify, if it is made clear that it is an issue.
Fantastic write up that expresses so many of the thoughts I had about the game. Try to email this to blizzard or post it somewhere where they might respond, it's gonna hurt because it's true.
On July 11 2010 17:29 spinesheath wrote: It's NOT the engine that prevents gameplay options. The engine could easily support the BW EMP with travel time, dark swarm, irradiate. Spells could have a global delay to prevent blanket storming, or the storm radius and energy cost could be reduced so that it actually takes a ton of clicks to blanket storm an area. Force Field creating stale situations is not the fault of the engine.
All of these are design choices that have nothing to do with the engine and that could be changed easily and quickly.
It is the engine that prevents options though, the fact that it is so much easier to quickly and accurately cast spells means that pros will not have to train much to perfect their use, just look at some diamond league games with FF or blanket storms. Blizzard isn't going to add a global delay, they will just nerf the spell until it is "balanced" being cast over a 3x3 pattern. The engine itself is what imperfects the usage of "imbalanced" spells and micro moves, be it dark swarm, stasis, or even muta/wraith micro.
I think the point is that smart-casting in its current implementation is not an inherent feature of the SC2 engine but a feature that has been put into the interface on top of the engine.
Then what is an inherent feature if it doesn't include unit commands and casting methods? You could then argue that any feature that makes SC2 different from SCBW is simply an interface addition. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought the OP was regarding differences in micro between the two games.
I think and *incredibly* important part to remember is that this is JUST SC2. It's like looking at SC, not BW. I mean think of all the units you mentioned in that post, and all of the dynamics. Don't even pretend half of them were there before BW came out. Sc2 isn't close to the same depth as SC and blizzard knows this. This is why they are releasing expansion packs. How long do you honestly think it would take to make another game that involved?
And please don't say the game has been in development for 12 years. I honestly hope no one believes that. It's as if the minute they released BW they looked at each other and said "well let's get number 2 going!". SC2 has been in serious development for, what, 4 years? maybe. When the expansion comes out I guarantee you will get all of your dynamics back. You can't expect them to be able to perfect that many things on initial release. They need to perfect the basic of SC2 first, in which they add the "wow" factor on. If you have wow and crappy fundamentals the game suffers for it in the long run.
Now I've read a lot of the previous comments about how SC2 should be BW and more. Really? Seriously? Do you really believe this? I am seriously asking, not being rhetorical. It doesn't make any sense. I mean if you don't think about it, it makes sense. But when you think about it in a business and practical sense that is impossible. You will never get a bigger and badder BW from any release ever for probably the next 5 years at least. I don't want to say ever because I don't have unlimited foresight.
i gotta agree with this, I love sc2 but now that i think of it, theres not that many nailbiting moments in comparison to sc1. Idk, only time will tell if such things will develop, but the way things are now its looking to be a more boring game. I hate how blizzard has dumbed down all abilities and spells. Anyways, who knows, maybe in future patches things will change?
Only BW could so good that only a couple days after SC2 beta came back people are watching old BW vods and losing hype on SC2. BW is a great game.
One thing about high level BW is that the game is so well worked out that the micro tricks used in certain scenarios are a legacy of many other small strategic actions and decisions. So, after so many games being played out, we can easily see how vital even the tiniest things are to the outcome. Sometimes things come down to having enough energy for just 1 scan. Or 1 dark swarm. I think its possible that after we have seen SC2 develop a little further in the hands of decent players sharing information on teams we will see more critical moments where just one bad EMP or whatever costs someone a game. When we all have seen these types of things a thousand times in SC2, we will start to see the significance of smaller actions grow. But im sure everyone already knows that but the mind gets restless waiting for things to be "perfect".
One thing i can say for sure, is there needs to be more volatile sounds and spells graphically. Plague looked and sounded like a plague. I mean, youd look at your army and there would be this red disease flung on them getting into the cracks of their armor and eating away at them. Even the sound seems unpleasant and sickly. Red is an alarming color. But with Fungal Growth these little green balloons grow out of your marines and start to do tandem glowing/wobbling. Its just way less volatile. It doesnt seem like war it just seems like tag. Spells/banelings need to be louder and have more vicious sound effects and names. Even if banelings could be used exactly like mines, they dont really have the punch of mines graphically or sonically. Banelings explode like waterballoons filled with green pudding. And the explosion seems kind of delayed to where its not very impactful or satisfying. Yeah, it works, but it doesnt feel like a sprung trap or a punch to the face. Even when everything gets killed by the banelings its just not really as vicious feeling as mines in BW.
On July 11 2010 18:19 Cytokinesis wrote: I think and *incredibly* important part to remember is that this is JUST SC2. It's like looking at SC, not BW. I mean think of all the units you mentioned in that post, and all of the dynamics. Don't even pretend half of them were there before BW came out. Sc2 isn't close to the same depth as SC and blizzard knows this. This is why they are releasing expansion packs. How long do you honestly think it would take to make another game that involved?
While I agree that expansions hopefully will rectify a number of the issues at the moment, I disagree that these elements didn't exist in SC1. Storm still existed, reavers/shuttle still existed. The only things which didnt exist were medics, lurkers, dts, corsairs (the other units don't see enough use to warrant being mentioned).
I really like the post. There are some quibbles to be had about the engine and/or modern amenities being the culprits, but if I just step back and act as if no culprits were suggested and simply look at the facts presented, the article's great.
In particular, I felt the points about many abilities and mechanics only focusing on the execution of one player were excellent (Seeker Missile is one of the few exceptions to this) and backed-up rather well, putting into words what most observers and players of StarCraft 1 feel but could not express.
Plexa's follow-up I agree with completely as well. I, and I think many others, enjoy watching players and ourselves try out new and different and somewhat entertaining strategies, but unfortunately many of these have already found their way into the strategy graveyard and I fear many, many more will just as many did for Brood War. I do have great fear that what remains among the living will not be what I would hope it to. At the same time, Plexa's ending note that there are still expansions left (grumble about having to pay even more to get the *REAL* game xD), and Brood War certainly helped StarCraft's cause (and there are plenty of other good examples of expansion packs that really helped a game, but I'll cite Dawn of War 2's Chaos Rising expansion which released earlier this year and made a lot of little changes and additions that at first slaughtered balance, but on the whole have made for a vastly superior game that's much more entertaining to watch too), but assuming that an expansion is simply going to revamp the game out of thin air isn't the best premise to ride on (the recent expansion I cited, Chaos Rising for DoW 2, relied heavily on community feedback).
Right, so gj Saracen for formulating into words what many of us felt, and props to Plexa for grounding the issue. Although Plexa, deep down you know you love seeing Valkyries in TvZ and Dark Archons in PvP
On July 11 2010 18:38 TerranUp16 wrote: Right, so gj Saracen for formulating into words what many of us felt, and props to Plexa for grounding the issue. Although Plexa, deep down you know you love seeing Valkyries in TvZ and Dark Archons in PvP
Definitely! Nothing brings a smile to my face more than when a Protoss warps in a Dark Archon hohoho
On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
While I agree with the OP, I disagree strongly with this view. The idea that the developers at Blizzard can systematically go through all the gameplay elements of BW, and pick out the ones that worked and the ones that didn't, is quite frankly ridiculous. I would say that emulating the perfection of BW is virtually an impossible feat, and anyone who went into SC2 expecting the developers to be able to do so, would, in all cases, be sorely disappointed. To expect that is both unrealistic, and unfair to the developers at Blizzard.
I don't even know how to reply, your post just doesn't make any sense.
I'm just gonna say that Arc System Works did exactly that when creating BlazBlue following GuityGear franchise.
They even hired the pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that came with a limited edition pack, which featured many high level moves, some which take ages to master, such as Carl's overpowered infinite grab loop. This would be akin to Blizzard hiring pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that show-cased muta-stacking & micro, shuttle reaver, etc.
If a small company like Arc System Works can do this, there is no reason Blizzard can't.
I got into Starcraft via watching SC2 beta, it was fun. I switched to BW soon after discovering it because it was way more exciting to watch. So I have to believe there's something more behind it than just the nostalgy - probably what the article mentions. Good read.
There's way too much complaining in these forums. Yes the article was well written but it failed to make any tangible point. Sc2 is less fun to watch? Huh? It's beta - what are you talking about??
So many of you are expecting to be disappointed and not even considering your own arguments.
Sc2 is a great, great game. No, it's not BW but an entirely different game with different kinds of mechanics. If you're unhappy with the so-called 'lack of micro' then wait a few years for the pros to dazzle you.
On July 11 2010 19:32 scrdmnttr wrote: There's way too much complaining in these forums. Yes the article was well written but it failed to make any tangible point. Sc2 is less fun to watch? Huh? It's beta - what are you talking about??
So many of you are expecting to be disappointed and not even considering your own arguments.
Sc2 is a great, great game. No, it's not BW but an entirely different game with different kinds of mechanics. If you're unhappy with the so-called 'lack of micro' then wait a few years for the pros to dazzle you.
On July 11 2010 19:19 sluggaslamoo wrote: I don't even know how to reply, your post just doesn't make any sense.
What about it doesn't make sense? You assert that 7 years of development and 12 years of BW evolution helps should make SC2 a better game than SC1. The thing is, watching Starcraft grow imparts no special knowledge to Blizzard on how to improve it. If Blizzard is to make a game that is definitively better than SC1, they would have to know what elements of SC1 were positive, and which ones were negative. I would argue that NOBODY could make a categorical list of "what's good" and "what's bad" about SC1.
You can never guarantee that a sequel will be better. The sequel is merely the developers' best guess at improving the original game, and what made the original good can't be known with 100% certainty. And the greater the original, the more unlikely it is that the sequel will actually be an improvement. When the game at hand is the best RTS ever made, a sequel that is "100x better from the get-go" is unrealistic, if not downright impossible.
On July 11 2010 19:19 sluggaslamoo wrote: I'm just gonna say that Arc System Works did exactly that when creating BlazBlue following GuityGear franchise.
They even hired the pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that came with a limited edition pack, which featured many high level moves, some which take ages to master, such as Carl's overpowered infinite grab loop. This would be akin to Blizzard hiring pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that show-cased muta-stacking & micro, shuttle reaver, etc.
If a small company like Arc System Works can do this, there is no reason Blizzard can't.
So you expect me to take on faith that:
1) BlazBlue is actually an improvement on the game experience of Guilty Gear 2) Guilty Gear is as refined of a game experience as Starcraft 1, and that improving upon it is as difficult or more difficult than improving upon Starcraft 1
Both of these things need to be established as being widely held opinions in the Guilty Gear/BlazBlue competitive community, and not just your opinion, for this anecdote to be meaningful in any way.
On July 11 2010 15:34 Saracen wrote:SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro.
That's exactly why I find SC2 battles more exciting than BW's. Both as a player and as an observer I find it more interesting to focus on something like deceptively positioning your forces to gain an advantage, as opposed to telling units to move out of a damage-over-time spell's area of effect. Additionally, I like for the outcome of the game to be decided by the former more than the latter.
I enjoy watching battles in BW, but for the grand tactics, not seeing a player's ability to overcome interface deficiencies to issue orders to units.
(I'm not saying the macro/micro balance is more or less competitive in SC2 than in BW, just that I enjoy playing and, relevant to this article, watching SC2 more than BW).
Great article Saracen. Actually inspires me to get to work on my article examining macro mechanics. I had given up on it, thinking "meh, nothing's gonna change anyway. What's the point?".
What Plexa brought up about colossus drop (TLO's gravitic drive strat), was one of the exact analogies I was going to use for explaining how the strength of the macro mechanics change the dynamics of the game.
If I recall correctly. TLO was annoying as hell and did damage but got overrun because White-Ra produced like 10 more units, ignored TLO's drop, and counter attacked in the early mid game. There's really no place in the game for gimmicky strategies (the equivalents of reaver drop) where you tech up fast and focus on harass while staying low on the army count. High ground advantage being removed is partly to blame here as well.
That is, for 2 out of the 3 races, there's no place for gimmicky strategies. One race has the macro mechanic to encourage it, and that's terran. Protoss and zerg are the type of races that, though they have efficient macro mechanics, need to expand because the nature of their macro mechanics has them oversaturate really fast. Zerg oversaturate the fastest, plus their units are ridiculously weak comparatively so they have no choice but to expand.
Protoss macro mechanic gives them a window for a really strong multigate timing attack in the early mid game (before they have been oversaturated for too long); but should that fail, leaves them crippled and without a chance in hell to recover. This especially plagues terran, because protoss produce anti air units through their natural tech pattern, thus limiting the array of gimmicky strategies for the terrans to choose from.
Terran on the other hand, have to get out of their base before a certain point where the protoss has gotten too many sentries. Otherwise the Protoss will just camp their ramp or some other choke point while expanding. The problem, in the TvP matchup, is that terran has to do this before their macro mechanic has kicked in to the point where they've caught up with the P. To a great extent terrans have to guess in TvP, just like zergs have to in ZvT. Terran has the same problems facing Protoss as Zergs have facing Terran.
* Hard to scout. * The other race completely dictates the pace of the game until the mid game. * You have to guess alot * Surviving until the mid game
What you're left with are two totally undynamic matchups that are disproportionally difficult for one of the races in the matchup. ZvT is ridiculously hard for the zerg, with loads of guessing and taking chances, while the terran can play it out like a standard "flash build" (analogy) that he knows from the back of his hand. Terran dictates the game and thus gets to make most of the choices.
On the other hand T's get the same treatment in TvP. Noobs making 4-5 gates (a standard build of the protoss arsenal) against them while they have to work their asses off to adapt, counter, and find their way out of the mess.
Only in ZvP do I feel that there's some true dynamic. While it's still broken in some ways, there's alot of strategies that both of the races can choose to do. The matchup is usually the most unforgiving for protoss, as any mistake they make gets punished hard due to the nature of the Zerg macro mechanic (and the fact that Protoss can't apply constant pressure in the same ridiculous way Terrans can while they expand in TvZ). But to an extent, protosses can turn this scenario on its head by fast expanding themselves. It makes for a much more interesting matchup than ZvT and PvT.
Anyway, better not blow all my material on this post. I have some interesting ideas on how I'd change the strength of the macro mechanics to better balance the game and once again introduce tactics such as the colossus drop (without easily being run over by a counter attack). For exmaple, I find it sad that something as essential as larva management is completely missing in SC2. Furthermore, that teching actually forced you to make a choice of forgoing units en masse for the sake of having the superior tech (with all it's rewards, whether it be map control (DTs) or harassing possibilities (reaver, vultdrop, fast lurker (drop)). Not as it now, that you can go 4 gate while still building a robo (takes away lots of the tension in the PvP matchup regarding DT rushes).
Posting to get some of my thoughts jotted down before I forget all about them again.
I think what's missing from SC2 is an element of uncertainty. In SC1 (especially against Protoss, but also against Terran) there's the constant danger of getting a pile of units obliterated in the blink of an eye by things like storm, spider mines, and reavers.
A SC1 game was a constant dynamic between units that are fragile to splash damage but statistically superior (marines, zerglings, mutas, hydras) and the splash abilities that people use to try to kill them. Like the OP said, SC1 took a bunch of unbalanced things and made them balanced. SC1 was like a duel with swords -- one slipup and you get stabbed, and that's that.
SC2, on the other hand, is like a boxing match -- you grind people down with brute force over time. There's nothing as scary as storm, mines, or defilers. You can look at the composition of two armies and figure out who's going to win. Sure, flanks and concaves and so on matter, but not as much -- if you have colossi and a Terran doesn't have vikings you're probably going to just roll over him.
Perhaps this is just because I'm not as good a player at SC2 as I was at SC1 (very long ago), but in SC1 when playing PvZ I often teched templar first. Why? Because I knew I could rely on storm to provide both reliable defense and reliable offense, if I was on my toes. But now I hardly ever make templar -- sure, storm is still good, but it's not going to keep me alive against a zerg macro like SC1 storm would. How many Terran players have said "Oh, my opponent is amassing hydralisks, time to get Hunter-Seeker Missiles to blow them all up"? Not many. The few mass-damage AoE effects are just not strong enough to rely on.
Instead, we get spells that let you a-move better: Infested Terrans, Auto-Turrets, Point Defense Drone, Guardian Shield. In many ways all of these are just ways to simulate having more guys than you really do.
The "terrible damage" tricks just aren't able to keep up with the army composition/macro game; only another huge well-composed army will, and who wins comes down to concaves and flanking -- or just who has more dudes. It's strategic, but it's not as nailbiting.
"Can I pull back my vessels before he scourges them before I can irradiate his defiler before he can cast a swarm before I can split my M&M around his lurker field? Good luck" LOL
While I agree to some degree with what was said, I think I'm gonna reserve my judgement for later. I still feel like sc2 is too new to make such a decision. Especially consider that most of the amazing scenarios described didn't exist in vanilla sc, and we've got two expansions ahead of us. Who knows what'll happen after that.
Starcraft II is definitely too new to judge its micro as lacking.
I have yet to see a perfectly microed battle. Stalkers using blink to tank damage, damaged units falling out of range, while phoenixes graviton beam to lift vital units like tanks or immortals, as a well placed force-field locks the enemy into a psi-storm. To this day I have never seen a pro micro phoenixes while still managing everything else flawlessly.
I think most of the common strategies at the moment are the easiest and utilize the least micro. Hence why they've become so powerful early on. I imagine the strategies we use now will get absolutely annihilated later on by builds that focus more on micro. Blink, graviton beam, storm, force-field, feedback Protoss builds.
Thanks for this artikel Saracen! Enjoyed reading it and i sure have to agree with your points. I think we can all agree that Starcraft 2 is a very good game. I do think though that i personally give this game more of a chance than other rts games based on the fact that it is Starcraft and that it's "flaws" or lack of "Broodwar elements" will eventually lead to me not playing the game anymore, or only in a very casual way. Im curious to how much maps and progamers can shape the SC2 experience for me though and am very much looking forward to it.
It's funny because back in 98 to early 2k really UMS and team games did the trick for me and only later on 1v1 became the center of my attention. It seems like it's going to be the exact opposite with SC2.
But we have nothing but time right? I think people need to realize there is much more analysing than actual complaining going on here. Players and spectators stayed with Broodwar for a decade for a reason, they like to point out why now by comparing elements.
Saracen should L2P instead of whine about the micro of a game which has not even been fully released.
Take this statement: "No amount of infestors will change the a game as much as GGplay's defilers did versus Iris." I can honestly say I have ALREADY seen some really awesome timings in pro replays with fungal growth, baneling drops, queen healing, force fields, storms, infestor-EMPing, etc. etc. that already make THIS game more fun to watch.
Disagree. Just someone being a crybaby. The amount of game changing damage a few blue flames can make (and you need to wait for that upgrade) to a mineral line. The way a well places baneling minefield or carpet bombing can change the tide. The insane splash collossi do, and how much difference the extended thermal lances do. How much difference Marauder Kiting makes.
All the things he is missing from the original, it is still there. It's just not in the same places, so he doesn't seem to be able to find it.
Can't help but disagree. I don't think we have the experience to compare the two games, and we possibly never will if SC1 survives and continues to be a big force. I personally enjoy watching SC2 as much if not more than SC1, but that's not a factual thing.
Expecting SC2 play to be as skilled as SC1 play with a 12 year difference in experience seems silly. The game is focused on compositions because people have, basically, no idea what they're doing yet.
"Fast forward to SC2 and the emergence of autocasting..."
I think you are referring to smartcasting, not autocasting, as autocasting is present in SC: BW too although SC2 have Repair and Interceptor as autocasting too. Not that much as big deal as smartcasting.
Nice article! It exactly summed up my feelings since the first time i've seen the BETA. Watching BW matches is so much fun and watching SC2 is nowhere near it. Playing SC2 is a lot of fun, but i just don't get the same feeling i had playing BW. Well it is different game and we shall see if it succeeds.
Only thing that makes me angry is, that everything we said is wrong on SC2 is there for purpose and Blizzard knows about it. They dumbed it down so very young people can play it and casual player enjoys it...they know that hardcore bw players will play it anyways and there will be money turneys involved so it is ok, so they are trying to make it closer for the casuals and wc3like players to get more people playing it.
It will unfortunately not ever be as perfect as bw was but that is not the point. It will be game that will take over esports and probably bring it to another level worldwide - but not perfect as bw - that is sad if you compare the possibilities now and before.
Why are we comparing 10 years of brood war meta-game to another game that hasn't been released yet, let alone constantly played at the professional level.
How about we wait and compare sc2 + first expansion to sc:bw and see where that takes us.
Different games are different, what's good is that BW will always be here for us to play as well, and SC2 is shaping to be a even better game than Warcraft 3 (which most people here would probably argue that sucked :D), which already had a big crowd following it.
What I can't understand is why people assume SC:BW and SC2 can't coexist, its like (lame comparison inc) saying that American football was doomed from the start just because there was already the Euro football (aka American Soccer).
So, instead of trying to make SC2 be SC1 with better graphics (which I'm sure some map maker will produce eventually ) try to help making it the best game it can be, and don't throw SC:BW away because its still the best game ever
Great read, well done objectively analyzing the excitement of battles in BW. There are distinct differences in the units which obviously will change the flow of battles. In no way does this doom SC2, simply calls attention to the differences, pointing out that there will be a new type of excitement in SC2 than BW, for better or worse, because the units are not capable of having the same BW outcomes.
Exactly what I've been thinking. I'd never have been able to put it so accurately into words though.
SC/BW is still untouchable, from both a player and (even more so) a spectator PoV. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks/months, but I believe only one or two major extensions could potentially change that.
On July 11 2010 23:32 Pandain wrote: Great article, but I was left wondering at the end what could be changed to make SC2 more faithful to its predeccesor. Future article, maybe? n.n
I think the main point is that the abilities need to be far more powerful than the units themselves. Just making all units have dramatically lower damage and hp would help.
I really do think they should nerf Forcefields to pre-phase 2. I mean, forcefields were at least decent in that they required quick micro and precision. Why did they change it?
The flocking AI makes any aoe damage incredibly powerful. Thankfully, that AI also makes unit control not give you a migraine.
I'm not even sure what the intent of this article is. I guess you're saying that we should make the AI really dumb or the game won't be just like broodwar? I agree 100% with that.
We are in a new era here. As much opportunity for micro bad AI presents, that just is not the way things are done anymore. I don't understand the TL community's need to complain about this incessantly, while at the same time knowing full well this is just the way it is going to be from now on.
Sorry for my pessimism, but I don't think these types of articles have any actual value for the community or blizzard's designers. When we are talking about the very building blocks o the game engine, you can't expect that to change. We just have to explore the new technology and do what we can with it.
I think the game is fun. The less I worry about whether or not it is like Broodwar, the more fun I have playing and watching.
Can I pull back my colossus before he corruptor snipes them before I can feedback his infestor before he can cast a fungal growth before I can surround my army around his ball?
tbh the level of micro required in sc2 is pretty much the same as sc1. the only difference is that u can cast spells with just key click click click (rather than key click, select unit, key click, etc) and this only comes into play for a few spells really...
the only things that i find are 100 times easier are macro and army selection. get rid of automine, mbs, and unlimited army selection!! fight the power!!
well written post, agreed with most of the points that has been brought up to put it in simpler terms is that SC2 is less dramatic in terms of combat than BW, in SC2 it felt like that comebacks are alot harder to achieve than BW, because of game breaking units such as reavers, templars, spider mines that made most comebacks possible in BW are missing imo...
A good read, thanks. However, I have to say that I think (or I hope) Blizzard is going to be adding more units in the expansions what will help to improve the aspect army control we love from BW. It took starcraft1 an expansion to truly realize the potential in the game.
Plus, I think we are going to see alot more innovative play once more of the pro teams start diving into SC2 with full force.
On July 11 2010 22:16 imbecile wrote: Disagree. Just someone being a crybaby. The amount of game changing damage a few blue flames can make (and you need to wait for that upgrade) to a mineral line. The way a well places baneling minefield or carpet bombing can change the tide. The insane splash collossi do, and how much difference the extended thermal lances do. How much difference Marauder Kiting makes.
All the things he is missing from the original, it is still there. It's just not in the same places, so he doesn't seem to be able to find it.
This^
On July 12 2010 00:11 xiaofan wrote: Can I pull back my colossus before he corruptor snipes them before I can feedback his infestor before he can cast a fungal growth before I can surround my army around his ball?
tbh the level of micro required in sc2 is pretty much the same as sc1. the only difference is that u can cast spells with just key click click click (rather than key click, select unit, key click, etc) and this only comes into play for a few spells really...
]the only things that i find are 100 times easier are macro and army selection. get rid of automine, mbs, and unlimited army selection!! fight the power!!
And this^ pretty much shows that there is micro in the game and interaction like we see in BW(things you state are more or less nonexistent in sc2). Will SC2 be like BW? Who knows. Will it be as entertaining or even more entertaining? Again, who knows. But proclaiming that it is this and that and talking about a 3 months old game that is still in beta and talking about it in absolute claims how it will be and wont be I just dont get it. Nobody can foresee the future no matter how extensive their insight into BW is or how much they played the beta.
Also plexas quote says that micro was in the game and used from the get-go. Either I'm completely mistaken or its the language barrier in play(my native tongue isnt english) but in the list of micro tricks is Julyzergs muta micro and wasnt that discovered years after sc1 was released?
I get it though(hopefully), this is more of an opinion piece which basically ends in you feeling nostalgic and how things you love in BW are different or just not in sc2 and you miss them. Fact is though some of your claims are a bit off and I hope that it doesnt affect too many in a way that they simply stop playing sc2.
I wonder how many more articles we will get that essentially say the same thing
To me this just kinda reads like an abridged version of all the other ones...
I think people just have to let SC2 pave its own way. The fact is you are NEVER going to see the kind of spells that you did before because the pathing is 100% different. Just let it be it's own game.
The Article is as true as it makes me sad. I only started to play sc bw because of the first TSL, but even in this rather short time i came to realize the game as what it is.
When i as a zerg tried to mass hydras vs Protoss and macro as hard as i could for 5min just to see them die to 2 well placed storms
when i used dark swarms and plague to fend off the terran ball
when i destroyed my opponent with mutalsik micro
when i had hold position lurkers infront of my base
that is when my heart got started.
I guess i will be playing sc2 like everyone, but i hope a miracle brings back the exciting moments ito sc2.
sc2 feels like it is mostly about unit counters and thats it.
Well written, but honestly I think there is still a lot of what you're missing, you just want a greater degree of it. I think the race that has most drastically changed is zerg, zerg had this really heavy micro/low economy feel to it in sc1 focusing on massive micro of mutas/zerglings/scourge, but now it's mostly a heavy economy defensive game until you start massing hydras with infestors in tow.
I wouldn't be shocked if the first expansion comes with several splash damage units and casters. Wings of Liberty coming with mostly balanced even-keel units, and then the expansion brings with it some over-powered units that bring boom/bust micro into the play.
On July 11 2010 12:27 Slardarxt wrote: I couldn't agree more with this article, perfectly sound logical arguments,
The only reasoning is: "It's different, therefore is bad". That's neither logical or sounding. Is just what old people say about the internet. The game is different, but you could argue that by having less single events that change the whole dynamic of the game, you encourage the win by the player that is more skillfull.
If I can change the game with a storm, someone else can change it with a LUCKY storm.
I prefer having more steamrolling games when the players are of different skill levels, than seeing the underdog going for gimmicks trying to get the skilled player off his game.
Let the best win. And for that, the less singularities, the better.
I won't account the spectator side of starcraft because the article talks about dynamics that a average spectator doesn't grasp.
Also, I'm not stating my opinion, but another valid point of view. What i'm trying to say is: We are discussing taste.
On July 11 2010 12:27 Slardarxt wrote:albeit we haven't given SC2 the benefit of the doubt or a chance to "develop" regardless of how truly lacking the game play is.
I think the current state of the meta game is: Delirious.
We are still in beta, playing a game that didn't even came out, and we are allready ranting on how we are doomed.
Also, the developments in therms of gameplay come from the players. We are still too biased from SC1 when we look SC2 and treat it too differently and complain that we can't treat it similarly.
To those I say, try SC1 tactics, and you'll see that they actually work. You just where deluted with the new macro dynamics.
Today we are playing starcraft at our base. That will change, when someone get's out of the base and change the dynamic of the game.
Okay, SC2 is not SC1. So what? You can't expect Blizzard to deliberately introduce pathing bugs that made reaver shots / mines so exciting, can you? You just can't take whatever it was that you liked in SC1 and put it into SC2, it just won't work. It's a different game, a different engine, a different UI.
And why would you anyway? If you want to play BW, go play BW. But stop bashing unreleased game for not being as perfect as you'd like. Just give it time to evolve and stabilize, wait for expansions and the patches.
Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one.
There are important timing windows in SC2, of this I am sure (when does storm finish? when is that first thor coming out? expansion timing?)
There are also the potential for a lot of significant unit interactions, but the most complex ones (e.g. between lurker/ling/defiler vs medic/marine/scivessel) come lategame so it will take a while for those compositions to be fully explored. HSM anyone? Ghosts vs templar?
Well written article, however I think it's much too early to draw these type of conclusions. You're comparing 10 years of BW to SC2 which hasn't even come out yet. I'm fairly confident that in the next few years, SC2 is going to evolve and we'll see much of the same potential and dynamics you're talking about.
i think the same thing.. i cant understand why the majority of people just think that sc2 its nice because its new and look cool. The important thing its under the graphics, and many of us need more from the game than only beatiful glowing things. Im not happy with the micro issues and the easier mechanics i have only 1 month or less of practic and i have more wins and control sensation than 4 years of hard sc:bw training, how can it be! I missed the hard part of the game that part that make you have respect from pro players and give u crazy needs to watch osl or msl finals.
Something is lost, and i hope here or in dev blizzard hq someone had the answer to give us back the power of starcraft broodwar in this new stage.
ps: i think that one of the best signs about this sc2 deep problem its the fact of having so many low count posting users defending the new game and so many old players having serious doubts about the game.
On July 12 2010 01:39 palexhur wrote: Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one.
That being said, some of these things just can't be helped. Blizzard can't be expected to keep certain archaic and clearly inferior game elements, just because it made the game more competitive in the long run. Making "improvements" in the areas that they did is the completely logical decision. Like I said though, I do agree with the OP, and it is my sincere hope that with patches and expansion units, Blizzard can bring more "unit potential" as well as more micro into SC2.
Very well written. I definitely agree with this article. BW is just as fun to watch as SC2 even without all the shiny graphics because the control dynamics were so amazing in BW.
On July 11 2010 20:29 entropius wrote: Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near a top player.
I think what's missing from SC2 is an element of uncertainty. In SC1 (especially against Protoss, but also against Terran) there's the constant danger of getting a pile of units obliterated in the blink of an eye by things like storm, spider mines, and reavers.
A SC1 game was a constant dynamic between units that are fragile to splash damage but statistically superior (marines, zerglings, mutas, hydras) and the splash abilities that people use to try to kill them. Like the OP said, SC1 took a bunch of unbalanced things and made them balanced. SC1 was like a duel with swords -- one slipup and you get stabbed, and that's that.
SC2, on the other hand, is like a boxing match -- you grind people down with brute force over time. There's nothing as scary as storm, mines, or defilers. You can look at the composition of two armies and figure out who's going to win. Sure, flanks and concaves and so on matter, but not as much -- if you have colossi and a Terran doesn't have vikings you're probably going to just roll over him.
Perhaps this is just because I'm not as good a player at SC2 as I was at SC1 (very long ago), but in SC1 when playing PvZ I often teched templar first. Why? Because I knew I could rely on storm to provide both reliable defense and reliable offense, if I was on my toes. But now I hardly ever make templar -- sure, storm is still good, but it's not going to keep me alive against a zerg macro like SC1 storm would. How many Terran players have said "Oh, my opponent is amassing hydralisks, time to get Hunter-Seeker Missiles to blow them all up"? Not many. The few mass-damage AoE effects are just not strong enough to rely on.
Instead, we get spells that let you a-move better: Infested Terrans, Auto-Turrets, Point Defense Drone, Guardian Shield. In many ways all of these are just ways to simulate having more guys than you really do.
The "terrible damage" tricks just aren't able to keep up with the army composition/macro game; only another huge well-composed army will, and who wins comes down to concaves and flanking -- or just who has more dudes. It's strategic, but it's not as nailbiting.
I think this is a really great first post... I totally agree that there's no excitement when you can be fairly sure of the outcome prior to a battle. I don't feel we can say that this is a certainty for sc2, but it is something I'm worried about
You know... I think that Blizzard sat down and looked at what they wanted to accomplish with Starcraft and how they could improve on the design. On a rational thought process, making a game easier to control is considered a general improvement to the game. Maybe that means that things are going to feel imba, maybe it means certain situations will always feel imba. But this shouldn't be new news for anyone who's participated in the Starcraft franchise. With the new, easier to control interface, it pretty much sets the game up for new ways and methods. We're going to see different styles of play and different reactions to things. Being resistant to change is a natural behavior, but I'm excited about what Starcraft 2 can do in experienced hands.
And, if it does turn out to be a huge disappointment... well- we can always just go back to brood war!
I got to say i've never seen such stupidity EVER on teamliquid from all the people who disagree with Saracens post... Litterally some of the worst arguements and the most garbage fanboyism i've ever seen. Teamliquid is pretty much becoming the CoD IW forums with all these people who will die with there game and if anyone who disagrees is instantanously wrong...
SC2 is a dumbed down and garbage version of broodwar and there is NO argument against it. No it is not different its just plain easier and plain WORSE. Every single part of the game has disevolved Macro is easier, THERE IS ZERO MICRO THAT A MENTALLY DISABLED REDHEADED BABY COULDN'T DO, and people saying OH OH POSITIONING IS HARDER. No it fucking isnt, its because it's the only factor that influences battles. It's comparable to people in the CoD community saying oh theres more awareness needed, but that its not true because its the only thing there because there is zero gun skill.
Pretty much Dustin Browder removed all of the units that focused on micro and that could drastically shift the game with a skilled players hands. He replaced these with absolutely GARBAGE units that do not create any micro battles. Examples of this is forcefield which creates micro for one player and then the other player just has to take it up the fucking ass as there is nothing he can do to win the micro battle. Then theres this hard counter system where you litterally again have to take it up the ass as there is no micro that could help you win that battle. And then theres marauders that are the epitome of this as again YOU CANNOT MICRO AGAINST THEM. So pretty much you have no micro that you can do if your in a down hill position to make it favor you.
Pretty much unit compositions are the king and everything else that was based off of the skill of the player has been removed or nerfed heavily. Thats why this game will NEVER be as good as SC BW with the current design philosophy Blizzard is going for. Also this game is pretty much done evolving micro wise 2 MONTHS IN. And when people find these spectacular timings micro again will take the back seat....
To put in my words Blizzard created a C@C game instead of a Starcraft game.....
I am no prophet, therefore I won't say SC2 will fail or not. But what I know for sure is that the game will attract millions, therefore even if it is considered less good than BW it will become the most popular of the two; especially if a strong eSport community evolves from it.
Once the community is here and money is envolved, the game will evolve. Then we will see and agree or disagree that this is a good game or not, it will be a different game than BW but I hope it will be just a difference of tastes. One's must be blind to not see this game will have a long life. eSport is not a matter of what game is the best, it is a matter of how popular it is, even WoW has a eSport community even if it is absolute garbage from a spectator point of view and VERY limited from the player point of view.
Therefore, if I am correct and the game will be the major eSport RTS game of the next years. We must just hope it becomes better and better due to players and developers; being griefed by it not being BW will just make you angry... and well I don't see BW disapearing so if you like this one best stay on/watch it.
its like for example, the arbiter in broodwar was a late game tech, took ages to produce and you have to research recall/stasis/and eventually the energy upgrade
but in sc2, you can basically do all that within like 6 mins - ie, stasis = force field pylon warp = recall
On July 12 2010 01:39 palexhur wrote: Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one.
On July 12 2010 03:16 OHtRUe wrote: Teamliquid is pretty much becoming the CoD IW forums with all these people who will die with there game and if anyone who disagrees is instantanously wrong...
SC2 is a dumbed down and garbage version of broodwar and there is NO argument against it.
It seems you're contributing nicely to that change.
I wish everyone would stop reading this article as a tidbit on "how SC2 sucks," but rather as a commentary about "how SC2 can be improved." Because SC2 most definitely does not suck. It's an excellent game. And even if Blizzard never again makes a single change to it, I have no doubt that it will still be an enormously successful game. But, it's not perfect. Sure, you could sit back and think "maybe we'll wait a few years and then somehow it will magically become perfect." Or you could try to do something about. Try to make it the best it can be.
On July 12 2010 01:39 palexhur wrote: Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one.
On July 12 2010 03:10 stellarvector wrote: You know... I think that Blizzard sat down and looked at what they wanted to accomplish with Starcraft and how they could improve on the design. On a rational thought process, making a game easier to control is considered a general improvement to the game. Maybe that means that things are going to feel imba, maybe it means certain situations will always feel imba. But this shouldn't be new news for anyone who's participated in the Starcraft franchise. With the new, easier to control interface, it pretty much sets the game up for new ways and methods. We're going to see different styles of play and different reactions to things. Being resistant to change is a natural behavior, but I'm excited about what Starcraft 2 can do in experienced hands.
And, if it does turn out to be a huge disappointment... well- we can always just go back to brood war!
I don't think that making the game easier to control necessarily means that you have to nerf things like psistorm. Sure, if you added smartcasting to SC1, psistorm would be overpowered.
But the solution isn't to nerf psistorm and its brothers -- it's to give other races *active* defenses that also become easier to use. And we are sort of going in that direction: look at the interplay between templar trying to storm and ghosts trying to emp them. But this is less important simply because storm is less scary -- at least at the level of play I am at, it's better to just spend the gas on tanks and thors and get stormed once in a while.
On July 12 2010 03:10 stellarvector wrote: You know... I think that Blizzard sat down and looked at what they wanted to accomplish with Starcraft and how they could improve on the design. On a rational thought process, making a game easier to control is considered a general improvement to the game. Maybe that means that things are going to feel imba, maybe it means certain situations will always feel imba. But this shouldn't be new news for anyone who's participated in the Starcraft franchise. With the new, easier to control interface, it pretty much sets the game up for new ways and methods. We're going to see different styles of play and different reactions to things. Being resistant to change is a natural behavior, but I'm excited about what Starcraft 2 can do in experienced hands.
And, if it does turn out to be a huge disappointment... well- we can always just go back to brood war!
I don't think that making the game easier to control necessarily means that you have to nerf things like psistorm. Sure, if you added smartcasting to SC1, psistorm would be overpowered.
But the solution isn't to nerf psistorm and its brothers -- it's to give other races *active* defenses that also become easier to use. And we are sort of going in that direction: look at the interplay between templar trying to storm and ghosts trying to emp them. But this is less important simply because storm is less scary -- at least at the level of play I am at, it's better to just spend the gas on tanks and thors and get stormed once in a while.
Isn't that sort of the problem he's talking about? Army Composition > Army Control in SC2. Much less true in 1
On July 12 2010 04:25 Saracen wrote: I wish everyone would stop reading this article as a tidbit on "how SC2 sucks," but rather as a commentary about "how SC2 can be improved." Because SC2 most definitely does not suck. It's an excellent game. And even if Blizzard never again makes a single change to it, I have no doubt that it will still be an enormously successful game. But, it's not perfect. Sure, you could sit back and think "maybe we'll wait a few years and then somehow it will magically become perfect." Or you could try to do something about. Try to make it the best it can be.
On July 12 2010 01:39 palexhur wrote: Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one.
Also, I really liked this quote a lot. Hah.
And still the OP is nothing new. It has been said in many ways, although mostly with worse layout and pictures. But there are so many threads like this I don't think it deserves the front page.
There is no way that ten years of brood war or any other games translates directly to SC2. Sure you will start at a "high" level from the start, but that level is going to explode soon and it will be no free ride for anyone wanting to compete. So the then years matters a lot. If SC2 survives for even five years, MDT will have enough highlights to fill a library :p
Good read, some very well-made points... but is it not too early to commit to these statements like the game has lost its excitement?
We've had ten+ years to hatch ideas that sc2 was going to be a vastly different game. The issues with casting may be addressed by changes to the game e.g. adding a small "charge-up bar" below the unit to alert the opponent that a spell is being cast.
I'm saddened that there's such lengthy prose to predicate a personal opinion on game that hasn't even reached retail or pro-levels of play ON THE FRONT PAGE of TL!!... and to push it a bit further, fellow readers, don't you think this read is discouraging to those who are striving to become the best of sc2?? namely, those players we love that have entertained us this few months: TLO, whitera, idra, tester... etc.
@Saracen You suggest that it's physically impossible to "dodge storms" but perhaps its possible to edge your army out of a possible storm's way when you see a high templar edging up to the fray? There are new dynamics with the birth of sc2, and instead of extolling these possible new dynamics this article completely entombs sc2 to this murky start imo... this is completely obscene and unexpected to find this on the front page of TL... SIGH.
Though units in SC2 are generally bigger, tougher, and attack faster and with more damage, there are a few things they have lost in the transition: game-changing spells and strong splash damage. And with this loss, the potential and dynamics of the game has deteriorated as well.
This sums it up so so well. The "large armies" aren't so large.
Less splash damage, less potential for game changing swings like an excellent mine drag, or amazing hold Lurker execution...
...now the exchanging of spells as well? 20% more damage to a target VS Plague or Dark Swarm...
I think if we give SCII some time, they will have more tricks to make the game amazing to spectate. SC: BW had plenty of time to discover Muta stacking, Reaver-Shuttle Micro, ect. SCII hasn't even hit retail, so obviously it will be unimpressive to watch when players are just learning the basics. Also, as time passes, we might not see the amazing spells, but a whole new kind of micro that we can't even imagine. Personally, I'm not worried about SCII being stale. I'm more worried that Blizzard will patch these new tricks that players will discover. (eg: "Fazing" and Patrol-Scatter micro)
Nice read, you bring many good points. But its not like there is nothing left in SC2. I still get alot of excitement from playing, and when I get a really good win in a really good game, my heart is pounding and I still fist pump into the air in a fit of joy.
Still I think there's reason to hope. Half of your splash units didn't exist until brood war came out. We're due another 2 expansions. That's plenty of time for Blizzard to craft units needed to fill a niche or change the style of the game.
I disagree strongly with the implications of this article and think that while it serves to create discussion, it is weak in substance and weakens the playerbase with a bad meme.
yeah I dont disagree with what your saying, I never rally got into broodwar so i just dont have an oppinion about it. I think with time sc2 can prove to have enough things to master to keep the games exciting. you might not have thought broodwar was very special during beta. then again you could be right, sc2 could be too "watered down" for some BW fans. time will tell, both are great games imo
I think it's still too early to jump to these kinds of conclusions. A lot of the examples mentioned come from games that occurred many years after SCBW was released and matured. Savior came along 7 or so years after the game was released to revolutionize how zerg was played. A lot of the tactics and units mentioned didn't really gain that much attention until well after SCBW had already gained a very large player base and progaming scene which would foster innovation.
Though the article has a very good point with force field. It really just dulls the micro in the game.
I'm going to have to disagree with the author of this article, but rather than write a long counter-argument, I'll just use one example from the article where the author is merely seeing what he wants to see.
You said that there was no way to micro out of a force field, saying that it forced one player to merely sit back and watch. In almost the same paragraph, though, you praised Stasis field for being one of those spells that was extremely powerful and interacted with EMP in interesting ways. Not only does Stasis Field prevent even more micro than Force Field, but they BOTH interact with EMP, making them game-changing spells.
There are a lot of people who just don't like not being far and away the best anymore, and feel like because they were B+ players on SCBW they should automatically be the best at SC2. Now, intelligence and a general understanding of how the game works is much more important and will get you further than hours and hours of practice to perfect timings and 300 APM, which is the way it should be. Unfortunately, hours and hours of practice is all that some players had to fall back on.
I've fallen into a bit of a tangent, but some people were only good at SCBW because they thought "this is the exact second when I need to build Mutalisks, because that's what my build order dictates." In Starcraft 2, on-the-fly build orders and "Well, he seems to be doing X, I'll try Y" seem much more valid. Maybe everyone will stop complaining when the Koreans start playing the game and giving them all the answers again.
On July 12 2010 07:11 Crippen wrote: You said that there was no way to micro out of a force field, saying that it forced one player to merely sit back and watch. In almost the same paragraph, though, you praised Stasis field for being one of those spells that was extremely powerful and interacted with EMP in interesting ways. Not only does Stasis Field prevent even more micro than Force Field, but they BOTH interact with EMP, making them game-changing spells.
...is a fair point, this...
On July 12 2010 07:11 Crippen wrote: There are a lot of people who just don't like not being far and away the best anymore, and feel like because they were B+ players on SCBW they should automatically be the best at SC2. Now, intelligence and a general understanding of how the game works is much more important and will get you further than hours and hours of practice to perfect timings and 300 APM, which is the way it should be. Unfortunately, hours and hours of practice is all that some players had to fall back on.
...is one of the most common poor arguments used in this debate. Most players who are B+ at SC1 ARE extremely good at SC2. This is because to become a B+ player requires a fairly reasonable understanding of the strategy underlying the matchups, and about RTS fundamentals in general.
You treat "hours and hours of practice" and "intelligence and a general understanding of how the game works" as if they are mutually exclusive, when this is probably the furthest from the truth that you could be. Most people who *truly* understand the game, are going to have played the game for thousands of hours. You cannot theorycraft your way into being strategically strong at this game. Game sense comes from experience, and those who say they have a deep understanding of the game without thousands of hours of practice are generally talking out of their ass.
On July 12 2010 07:11 Crippen wrote: I've fallen into a bit of a tangent, but some people were only good at SCBW because they thought "this is the exact second when I need to build Mutalisks, because that's what my build order dictates." In Starcraft 2, on-the-fly build orders and "Well, he seems to be doing X, I'll try Y" seem much more valid. Maybe everyone will stop complaining when the Koreans start playing the game and giving them all the answers again.
This is the case because of the way Starcraft 1 strategy has been developed and optimized. It has nothing to do with its design. If you don't think that players in SC2 will refine build orders down to individual supply counts, and follow them with rote repetition, then you're ignoring the fact that it happens in virtually any RTS that grows a competitive following.
And the people who did that were never "good". I would venture a guess that a majority of people that just followed build orders on Liquipedia without understanding *why* they did any of those things probably never broke D+.
100% Agree... I love SC2, but as a spectator sport it just isn't as good, all but a very few games of SC2 don't put me to sleep while watching, I hope in time it can change/evolve to be better for viewers.
I agree that some of the spells and the splash has been toned down a bit. And while thinking about your argument of army composition vs micro. I really though about broodwar army composition and the fact is that in scbw everyone already has army composition figured out.
If you watch practically any TvP game you will see mainly Tanks and Vultures vs Dragoons and Zealots those are the main stay units that is your basic army composition. If the Protoss tried to go Zealots and DTs he would prolly lose cause of Mines and the insane amount of damage vultures do to small units. Or if the Terran tried to go Tanks and marines late game for instance they would get raped by storm.
Your average PvT hopefully a bit more dragoons in the background
There are so many more examples of how army composition would be more important than micro. Dragoon heavy army vs Tank Vultures, A Zealot heavy army vs Lurker Hydra, Mass hydra vs MnM or any Protoss composition of units that does not include storm vs Mass Hydra
Also I believe that there can be alot of more interesting micro in SC 2. In fact the reason that they made macroing a bit easier was to give new players the ability to micro more. When you first start out with SCBW when a battle is happening you can either micro or macro you can't do both.
In SC 2 its a bit easier to macro and also with so many abilities microing is a lot more effective in my book. Consider these abilities Blink, Forcefield, Roach fast regeneration, Roach moving burrow, Thors Cannons, Vikings Transitions, banshee cloak, Thats not even including the "main stay" spell casters Like the templar, mothership, infester, and the raven.
As you mention so of the spells are toned down now. So doesn't that mean that each spell has to be used to its full potential? Sure in Low Platinum League can you mass Templars up for psi storm. But at a pro level everything becomes harder. Feedback and Emp even Fungal Growth can be used as counters to Templar (you can't storm what you can't get too )
I really think SC 2 will have more intense micro battles. Just imagine the crowd when a small group of marines can focus down a collosi with no casualties XD
As much as I love being in the beta, I can't help but feel that if Blizzard had kept SC2 in closed beta, with a large influence from the Korean Pro scene, we would have a much better game.
Instead we have players whining about void rays on the forums because they cant seem to win while six pooling and doing 2 gate proxys.
The community right now is filled with players treating the game like its already released, that its their right to play, and everything is balanced. Instead of thinking of a new strategy, a new trick, a new build order, they scream IMBALANCE every time they lose to something. This doesn't progress the game, but further limits the options a player can make, as Blizzard patches and fixes what the vocal demographic wants.
I think this article is extremely well written, but not very productive. Sort of a high-qual rehash of what's been posted in the forums before. Perhaps an article on what can / needs to be done?
Great article and a great read! thanks for the time that you had put into this! I really enjoyed your point of view, and i agree 100%!
Everyone who plays and enjoys sc2 should take note:
If you found fault with this article, i have only a few things to say to you...
arguments of sc2 vs BW are over. BW is nigh un-attainable in a game ever again. So will bw always be better than sc2? yes... But what you all need to start realizing is that when people have dissenting opinions about sc2, they are not trying to destroy the game! They are trying to make it better, so it can hopefully live up to the name of SCBW!
Secondly- to anyone that shares the logic of 'sc2 is still in beta' you need to to take a hard look at your arguments. They are not valid for a number of reasons. There are no hidden gems or hidden tricks to be found out... sc2 is figured out from a mechanical point of view. in the article, the OP is simply pointing out the fact that if this is all sc2 has to mechanically offer, it is going to be a poor excuse for BW.
Lastly- Newcomers to SC should really learn to listen. Listen to more experienced players, listen to more well thought out opinions. I am getting sick and tired of your one liner rebuttals. I am talking to you- 'sc2 is in beta' 'apm elitist' 'everything has not been figured out yet' 'sounds like another crybaby' posters. Listen up and respect the hard work and opinion of the forum veterans. these people will know more about sc and rts than you ever will. they understand both games very intimately- and when one of them creates a wonderful piece, it's simply rude to answer with a simple one liner.
Here is a wake up call! Don't come into a gaming community involved with ONE GAME FOR THE PAST DECADE- and somehow kid yourself that you have an enlightened opinion.
I think it's absurd to say that SC2 will need another 10+ years to be figured out. When the community has reached a high meta-game in the prequel, you know what to look for in the next game. It's not like we all suddenly have amnesia and forgot every strategy from the previous game. Even though it's too early to know the direction of the meta-game, we can make an educated of how much the game engine/design will take us, it's beta afterall, we're supposed to test and see how this stuff works.
I played Melee competitively, and when Brawl came out and all the advanced techniques were removed, people were saying "oh! give it time! Melee has been out for like 7 years!" But all the experienced players can already see the glaring flaws in the game, and it turns out, the experienced players were right for the most part. Brawl just isn't as entertaining to watch and play compared to Melee (you may disagree, but sorry, most players will tell you otherwise in terms of depth). It's definitely not as obvious in SC2, but you can still see the potential depth of the game being lower than that of BW. Not saying that SC2 can't be fun because I think it's a lot of fun to play, but its longevity as a spectator e-sport is questionable.
Good article steel full of statuo quo bias ( many bw pros want to stay things the same negleting the evidence that sc2 is in so many ways better - bit of Semmelweis reflex here - )
and rosy retrospective ones ( see older games as better as they used to be when actually they werent )
Great article and while I respect SC vets, I also think you need to give Blizzard a chance and look at history. Yes, you guys are knowledgeable and intelligent, but Blizzard's employees are every bit as intelligent and arguably more. Name one PC game made by Blizzard that sucked.
Historically, every succeeding game (and arguably almost every expansion) made by Blizzard has outshone its predecessor. D2: LOD > D2 > D1, SC:BW > SC, WC3: TFT > WC3, etc. Everyone has their opinions, but you cannot deny history.
lots of good points in the OP and the thread but for me, it boils down to slows and stuns. BW had one slow, ensnare, and two stuns (lockdown and maelstrom, I guess you can say 3 if you count stasis). SC2 has way more. Ultimately, I think that's the difference.
On July 12 2010 11:51 prochobo wrote: Great article and while I respect SC vets, I also think you need to give Blizzard a chance and look at history. Yes, you guys are knowledgeable and intelligent, but Blizzard's employees are every bit as intelligent and arguably more. Name one PC game made by Blizzard that sucked.
Historically, every succeeding game (and arguably almost every expansion) made by Blizzard has outshone its predecessor. D2: LOD > D2 > D1, SC:BW > SC, WC3: TFT > WC3, etc. Everyone has their opinions, but you cannot deny history.
I just want to remind anyone who was there of the shitstorm that centered on the War3 beta and launch. My recollection of it, while somewhat vague all these years later, is that many competitive players in the beta raised numerous objections to design decisions in the game, and Blizzard/the supporters argued that they simply couldn't know how things would work out after only a few months. My recollection is that the vast majority of the decisions that were complained about were huge issues to good competitive play, and were changed in time, eventually spawning the nearly complete overhaul of the game that was The Frozen Throne. My recollection is also that the competitive scene was stagnant between vanilla coming out and the xpac released, and even now my feeling (which may be off) is that War3 has always been overshadowed by DoTA and BW, and has failed to really live up to the competitive potential people had hoped for it.
In short, many people claimed that during War3's beta, it was simply too soon to predict how things would go, or to think expert players already understood the game. But I find it very telling that DoTA is the game which has spawned so many copycats and so many competitive leagues, not War3.
Which is to say, I think it's very fair to say that SC:BW > War3, which came after it; and granted, they aren't exactly the same style of game, but in terms of hardcore depth and raw game charisma, (tho not in terms of UI or encounter sophistication) Vanilla WoW > BC > Wrath.
I dunno, I may be off base on these comparisons. Maybe I'm out of touch, and people really think War3 was a huge competitive success, and Wrath is a giant leap forward over Vanilla WoW. There are certainly a lot of innovations in all those examples that have improved convenience and accessibility, and been embraced by other games. /shrug?
I agree with the above poster, but with BW. A lot of people don't take regards to the fact that BW took 10 years to balance, and it was an expansion. SC w/o BW was not very popular in Korea, and wasn't very competitive until BW came out. I believe we can't truly judge this game until both expansions are here, and Blizz have been balancing it for at least a couple years AFTER the final expansion. Although the OP fits perfectly to the beta right now, we all know the game will be totally different in a few years.
On July 12 2010 07:11 Crippen wrote: There are a lot of people who just don't like not being far and away the best anymore, and feel like because they were B+ players on SCBW they should automatically be the best at SC2. Now, intelligence and a general understanding of how the game works is much more important and will get you further than hours and hours of practice to perfect timings and 300 APM, which is the way it should be. Unfortunately, hours and hours of practice is all that some players had to fall back on.
I've fallen into a bit of a tangent, but some people were only good at SCBW because they thought "this is the exact second when I need to build Mutalisks, because that's what my build order dictates." In Starcraft 2, on-the-fly build orders and "Well, he seems to be doing X, I'll try Y" seem much more valid. Maybe everyone will stop complaining when the Koreans start playing the game and giving them all the answers again.
this isn't even a tangent; this is literally out of no where. how does ragging on old bw players have anything to do with game dynamics? there are many intricacies in bw that you can only understand when you've reached a certain level and i don't think many people who flat out disagree with the article have reached that point.
anyone saying that sc2 needs 10 years to be a decent game and that sc2 is totally unrelated to bw is well, not thinking their arguments through. sc2 is not a completely different game, it's closer to being a second expansion for starcraft than it is to being an entirely different game. There isn't 4 months of experience to build on, there is 12 years. Can you name any other thing where they throw away all their previous experience when they design and evaluate the next model? Do university students have to discover every theory and personally research every idea themselves? no, they learn from the experience and research done by others in the past. Is every new car designed from scratch with no regard to previous designs? Are houses built with trial and error or do architects and builders draw on past experience?
Obviously in all these cases previous experience is not disregarded... I see no reason why starcraft 2 should be unique in this regard.
edit : I would like to know if anyone actually has examples of glaring issues in betas that "just worked themselves out" over time... I've seen arguments to the contrary, but noting supporting this idea.
The most well writ argument for what is truly missing from SC2. Thanks for such a well thought out composition, and I sincerely hope the folks at Blizzard take the time to read this.
You have many valid points that blizzard would do well to take note of. However, I think its a bit early to dismiss sc2 as an inferior game. It's not even out yet, you shouldn't be comparing it to a game thats been out for 10+ years and has been exhaustively analyzed, and with an expansion pack. Sc2 is still in it's infancy (or rather, it's the equivalent of a fetus at the moment), it seems a bit short sighted to be calling it inferior before it's even had a chance to grow.
And to all those saying "it's a beta, and bw took 10+ years to balance", you are suggesting we sit around and wait until it's the same fro sc2? "Cause we have nothing to worry, everything will turn fine"
very interesting read, it shouldn't be read by TL users, but by Blizzard btw i think it would be not bad if bw gets look of SC2 with some extra units & skills. I am really considering that would be one of solutions to balance the game. Why so many changes when something works well?
Great read that defines what has been discussed in many threads but not very often so well worded.
SC2 is a much more positional game I agree, what Im interested in is is given time and knowledge will that 'positional skill' be as interesting to watch in pro matches as 'micro control skill' was in BW?
I can't answer my own question just yet. Currently Im still fascinated with watching the new playstyles emerge from the (currently) top players. Watching the difference between White-ra and Nony for example. There definitely feels like enough depth to the game that styles of players are starting to show up. This is an excellent thing.
Is there enough depth to make it a game of evolving styles like BW has been for so long? I don't know yet. SC2 certainly isn't the micro-macro game of BW and this article defines that clearly but is that a bad thing? Too early for me to tell but I appreciate such a nicely written article to read that defines the terms so well
I'd think by reading this that what would destroy Starcraft 2 is Nostalgia...
Nostalgia is always a uncreative way of viewing things, while being completely understandable and sentimental, likewise Human as its finest. Still, there's no way to know how Starcraft 2 would evolve, when you look at the beginning of SC.
Life can be full of surprise. Will this game be too ?
I don't see how positional play affects SC2 as much as BW. You don't have high ground advantage, flanking, or strategical position holding units like the lurker/tank/reaver.
IMO the most important feature of SC2 is composition and timings. This doesn't mean that it wasn't important in BW, but rather, the other mechanics aren't as useful in SC2.
On July 12 2010 16:08 brinbran wrote: i always thought the reaver was a stupid buggy retarded unit and the stupid scarabs always brought in too much luck into the game.
The thing is, no one complained about it. High pay-out at a high risk.
It kinda irks me when I see people who are new to the scene disagree with this article. To me it feels like they don't even know what they're missing and that they're ignorantly dismissing everything it talks about.
Sigh. I'm just going to wait it out. Just a sheep following the SC2 crowd.
Ok, I read the article. This is basically just reiterating what I have been saying since the beta was released, albeit in a very articulate way. Thanks for the great read.
SC2 is fun, but I don't think it will be a successful e-sport. It feels like it's being forced, and many people are pushing for whatever reason. Certainly it's the best game to come about in quite some time, but it's not, nor will it ever be as awesome bw. I would not buy stock in SC2 based e-sports. The development team either succumbed to the lowest common denominator, or simply didn't understand why bw was such a tremendous game. Period. IMO.
On July 12 2010 19:18 lu_cid wrote: God needs to trim his finger nails. Nasty.
Ok, I read the article. This is basically just reiterating what I have been saying since the beta was released, albeit in a very articulate way. Thanks for the great read.
SC2 is fun, but I don't think it will be a successful e-sport. It feels like it's being forced, and many people are pushing for whatever reason. Certainly it's the best game to come about in quite some time, but it's not, nor will it ever be as awesome bw. I would not buy stock in SC2 based e-sports. The development team either succumbed to the lowest common denominator, or simply didn't understand why bw was such a tremendous game. Period. IMO.
True. They should use popularity of SC2 amongst "new/younger" players to revive BW and turn it into major E-sports in the west (Outside of Korea)! XD
Listen up and respect the hard work and opinion of the forum veterans. these people will know more about sc and rts than you ever will. they understand both games very intimately- and when one of them creates a wonderful piece, it's simply rude to answer with a simple one liner.
Really? You're equating Starcraft knowledge and experience with forum post count and join date? Wow.
Not equating. But when someone with 12 posts comes and says "You compare BW which is a 10 year old game to something which is still in the beta", you want to smack them in the face. You could have at least read the article (which is very intelligently written) in it's entirety before responding (with such a thick comment).
If only all the SC2 fanboys would realize that defending the game at every point is not in best interest of it's development. Saying that you prefer SC2 over the original is a ridiculous thing to say, and doesn't at all go hand in hand with the "it's only beta" argument. I can only blame dreams of careers and glory coming from an all new supported game for all this fanatical apologetism.
One of the responses of Haypro from his interview says it all. When asked what he likes about the game, he says it's the community, because there are a lot of old players coming both from Warcraft 3 and original Starcraft. He didn't mention the algorithm of the game itself at all.
I want Starcraft 2 to be a great game much more then you blindly believe and try to lie yourself and others it is. But in it's current state, it is not.
I disagree with a lot of this, makes me wonder if the OP has really watched enough high level SC2 play.
"Though units in SC2 are generally bigger, tougher, and attack faster and with more damage, there are a few things they have lost in the transition: game-changing spells and strong splash damage. And with this loss, the potential and dynamics of the game has deteriorated as well." Do a search on DPS. There's a chart comparing sc1 to sc2, values are actually all pretty similar for comparable units. Concerning splash damage, units clump up more in SC2, so a even little splash damage possibly deals more damage.
On July 13 2010 00:24 cloaked wrote: I disagree with a lot of this, makes me wonder if the OP has really watched enough high level SC2 play.
"Though units in SC2 are generally bigger, tougher, and attack faster and with more damage, there are a few things they have lost in the transition: game-changing spells and strong splash damage. And with this loss, the potential and dynamics of the game has deteriorated as well." Do a search on DPS. There's a chart comparing sc1 to sc2, values are actually all pretty similar for comparable units. Concerning splash damage, units clump up more in SC2, so a even little splash damage possibly deals more damage.
Trust me, I have played enough high level SC2 play. Don't even get me started about watching... However, this comment makes me wonder if the poster has really watched any SC:BW play. Because if he had, he wouldn't have even thought about saying this.
constructive criticism on the ARTICLE people... not attack the WRITER... that is disgraceful
SIGH, despite loyalty to the sc franchise... i don't think sc2 e-sports will ever come close to the success of bw. but that is besides the point! maybe the dynamics of sc2 will be changed after years of patching, we ought to keep an open mind...
constructive criticism on the ARTICLE people... not attack the WRITER... that is disgraceful
SIGH, despite loyalty to the sc franchise... i don't think sc2 e-sports will ever come close to the success of bw. but that is besides the point! maybe the dynamics of sc2 will be changed after years of patching, we ought to keep an open mind...
Hohoho that was fast. By the way, my main race is Zerg... I have been offracing this phase because I want to get a better feel for the other two races since I plan on writing some fun build order articles in the future...
On July 13 2010 00:17 Smu wrote: Not equating. But when someone with 12 posts comes and says "You compare BW which is a 10 year old game to something which is still in the beta", you want to smack them in the face. You could have at least read the article (which is very intelligently written) in it's entirety before responding (with such a thick comment).
Note that one can apply this knee jerk reaction in reverse. "When someone with 12938 posts comes and says nothing can approach BW, and that everyone who disagrees with OP hadn't read the article and/or hasn't shown sufficient deference with regard to how intelligently written it is, you want to smack them in the face."
Once upon a time, you had 1 post. Your epeen has grown quite a bit since then, but no amount of intelligent analysis can cover for the fact that SC:BW > SC2 or SC2 > SC:BW is a matter of taste. I don't begrudge any SC:BW vets the right to claim BW as superior as long as they don't masquerade it as fact.
I prefer watching brood war to sc2. Is this because the typical BW game that makes its way to my browser is played at a much higher level? Or is it because BW is hands down superior? I do not possess the temerity to claim the ability to answer this question, and I'd like to think this will not change as my epeen slowly grows.
I'm much too low-level of a Broodwar player to say much about the significance of this game, but I think that it showcases the possibilities of micro in Starcraft 2. From what I have seen, this sort of play is certainly the exception rather than the rule at this point, but it might still be a little bit early to make solid judgments.
And yet all the games he referenced happened how many years after SCBW was released? SC2 hasn't even been released yet. And though you may say that it already has limited itself, think of how many game changing things happened between SC1 and SCBW. And even then! The patches change the game all the time.
I say, give it chance. The micro/macro is not what kills this game just yet, the only thing killing it is the noose around the Custom Communities neck in making new maps/mods.
After reading this article I have one question in mind: Would you like to have a SC:BW with the new engine? Is that what you want?, a BW with it's face washed?
Plese, oh please, give the game the chance to develop and evolve. If you're right, it will (should) get there
I understand the points of the pro-players, they're pretty fair and, really, who the hell I am to argue with them? (I haven't play starcraft for more than 8 years - to say the least)
Still, every time I read about this topic, that what I feel. That you guys want SC:BW with the new engine.
The game at its current state, is not at the awe-inspiring level SC:BW was and is today. But I also agree was the argument that the game has the potential to improve and reach that point, hopefully in a new and different way. Time will only tell if players can elevate SC2 to an exciting level that people all over the world want to play and watch.
On July 13 2010 04:42 Schamus wrote: And yet all the games he referenced happened how many years after SCBW was released? SC2 hasn't even been released yet. And though you may say that it already has limited itself, think of how many game changing things happened between SC1 and SCBW. And even then! The patches change the game all the time.
I say, give it chance. The micro/macro is not what kills this game just yet, the only thing killing it is the noose around the Custom Communities neck in making new maps/mods.
But the skills carry across from BW into SC2. No one is jumping into unknown territory here and everyone is deliberately looking for any micro tricks, but due to the engine and how the game is played now it might be that tricks that are found are not necessarily even useful. A lot of the BW tricks were useful thanks to the 12 unit limit and pathfinding difficulty which is no longer a problem. This is just speculation but i think once the safest possible macro builds are found out SC2 is going to be a lot less interesting to spectate, it simply won't be viable to play a micro game or anything unusual because you'll be overwhelmed. Imo its not as possible anymore to hold onto high ground (as easily at least) or exploit small chokes etc. to play a different style of game
I don't think its quite a fair comparison to compare a 12 year old game that had an expansion to a game with plans for 2 expansions to come which is not yet out of beta.
BW is a beautiful and good game, SC2 is darn good too in it's own right.
Nice article, but I think you writing style really turned too many people off. This thread has simply degenerated into another BW vs. SC2 debate with absolutely no valuable discussion about how actual improvements can be made to the game. Now this type of vitriol must be expected with any article on this subject, but I think that you could have prevented much of it by suggesting ideas for improving viewing excitement without destroying the current balance of the game. Something like cutting Roach and Marauder health in half and lowering their costs, or increasing the damage output of psi storm. This could have resulted in some deep and insightful discussion of the game. Instead, your article focused more on your fond memories of various BW games, which while enjoyable for BW veterans, is not conducive for any healthy discussion. Because of this, the predominant theme of this thread has just been a massive yet unproductive BW vs. SC2 war. In the future, it is important to think about the discussion possibilities of your articles in addition to the actual content. Otherwise, expect many more unsavory and roiling threads like these.
On July 11 2010 11:55 Traveler wrote: I completely agree. Much of the new abilities seem to offer no counter to when they are used.
Having ones army cut in half by forcefields and then killed leaves one with such and utter sense of helplessness.
It seems that Blizzard developed some beautiful looking abilities that don't really add to the necessity of skilled management, but rather make it easier to cast 5 storms at once, or emp a bunch of units in less than a second.
Perhaps there could be ways to fix some of these things, like perhaps giving forcefields life points, or making it so that spells have a delay timer on them if they are cast grouped...
Agreed. Also note EMP, uncounterable as toss. Yes splash needs a buff.
On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote: I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand...
Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't.
Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc.
SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you.
Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today.
I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much.
On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote: Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
I like both these posts :D. exactly right guys
I like both of these posts as well as the OP's. You guys do it right! =)
The sc2 dev team had no idea about these things.. Isn't it ironic? The company never really understood its game. They started making sc2 with the goal of creating units "as exciting as possible" and they failed miserably, because they didn't understand what makes a unit exciting in the terms of starcraft gameplay. Sc1 units are cooler than sc2's will ever be.
Blizzard underdeveloped this game, so they could sell expansions. The SC2 team saw too much 3D warcraft. There is a reason why SC1 a poor graphic game is still so popular. It is the same reason why Golden Eye 007 was the most badass shooter. A well developed game will always be more entertaining to those who understand it than a pretty game.
Also spells and splash damage aren't the only things wrong with this game. Some units are unusable and might become usable in time, but they seem poor at the moment. Especially mothership + reaper. Comparatively you might say firebats or queens were unusable in SC1, but firebats could hold off massive forces if too many lings were coming your way and I still believe the queen could have been implemented more. Likewise
I`ve been lurking for a couple of month now since i got beta for SC2 and i am in no way a SC:BW veteran, great rts player or pro theorycrafter. I also don`t disagree with what Saracen has posted. However i will be talking from a professional game developer position and also a core gamer (i played only Guild Wars at a somewhat semipro level in the past). Here are my thoughts: It`s not 98. Today IT`S NOT ACCEPTABLE to introduce into the game what most core and casual gamers perceive as bugs - Ex. when a core or casual player sends 3 goons up a ramp he expects them to go there and align the same way they were aligned when he sent them. This means if Blizz wants to sell they have to streamline all this little mechanics so that the player will get the feedback from the game that HE EXPECTS or that gamer will ragequit. Ragequiting once will make him more reluctant to enter the game the second time. Ragequiting second time will make him more reluctant to enter the game the third time and so on. This does not help the game, does not help Blizzard and definitely does not help the community. Having a community made up only of the elite is the worse that could happen to a competitive game. Just because maybe less than 10% of the players will have enough time or dedication to invest in becoming the elite. Thing is that Starcraft 2 is a game that is rewarding on all levels. Easier mechanics make it more interesting for the guys PLAYING IT in any league just because it will be easier for them to get WINS and after every win they will aspire to one day kick the shit out of Boxer`s ass. Because they don`t feel he is that far from them. However that is only in theory, Boxer is leagues further from them but those leagues are navigable with enough dedication in a shorter time than before for the average joe. And the more average joe`s want to be at the top the more dynamic and more interesting the competive scene will be. You won`t just cheer for the pro`s, you`ll aspire to be one of them. And where there`s demand, there`s an offer. More leagues will be created, more money will be thrown at them, more countries will have proleagues, the "world cups" will get more coverage, legends will be created and smashed by the day and if a bonjwa ever rises his position will be constantly is danger. The best example of what i said the last 2 paragraph is dota and it`s spin-offs like HoN or LoL. Take a look at those games, realize they are very easy to play but they leave enough room for wow moments, see how may people play it and how many money is thrown at them. This is SC2 - there are countless possibilities for wow micro, bo refinement, the game is faster and more adaptable. It`s true that it`s possible that the game will reach it`s skill cap faster but that doesn`t mean that fully skill balanced games are not interesting or less competive. En contrair, they will be even more watchable and breathtaking because you will never know who will win in advance. And there`s nobody stoping Blizz in releasing a new expansion as soon as skill cap has been reached to introduce even further mechanics and make it interesting again if enough people find it stale or there is just a demand for it. If more people play the game, the game is interesting
Good read Sacaren, personally though I think that the reason we don't really see much micro in SC2 is probably because the 'builds' that are memorized and have been memorized in BW (for years) haven't even been developed for SC2 yet - at least not really. I feel the pros and regular players alike are both still trying to learn the best counters, strategies, macro game, etc. and as a result the majority of games don't even bother with micro as there is no need - the players simply counter each other. Of course there is also the fact that units are quite simply easier to control in SC2 than in BW.
It also seems to me people really forget what the game was like in SC (before BW), because its been so long since that version has been played at all. The thing is about SC before BW (1.07 version is BW all versions before this) is that well quite simply, it was like SC2 is now. Micro was there in bursts but it never really came into play, not only were people still learning the macro and mechanics of the game but also the tweaking of the units was such that the so called 'hard-counters' were very prevalent. BW completely changed the face of the multi-player game, and as a result we must take SC2 the same as original SC - a starting point from which to build on. There is two more expansions/games to come for SC2, I'm sure by the time we get to Legacy of the Void the fine balance between micro and macro we've seen in BW and have all come to know and love will return - hopefully even better than it is in BW.
Edit: 'Wow micro' moments still exist in SC2 even if we haven't found them yet. One I know that will for sure eventually show us a wow moment is Banshees. They out-range upgraded Hydras by 1 range, and have a moving shot - put em in the right hands versus Hydras and we'll see some amazing micro.
I agree, its just not the same. The Blizzard team has gone all the way to make it as close as possible to SC1, but it just isn't possible.
Speaking of which though, SC2 is a great game, but if we go gameplay for gameplay, SC1 will always win over SC2, whether its splash, spells, micro, bug abusing or macro it wins.
But we must accept they are different games and the next best thing is SC2. And its actually for the better, because who would like SC1 the 12 years old game in 3D, I'd imagine now very much.
Even the most nostalgic and loyal SC1 core players would like some innovation, some new units, some new spells, etc...
Really enjoyed reading the article. That being said i´d like to add that i fully belive that we will get magic moments from Sc2 aswell as we did from Sc1. Remember that we are only in the beta phase and that alot of great gamers still haven´t started working on this. Sc1 has been going for several years with intresting development of how the game was played. Im sure Sc2 will have the same development. I wouldn´t be to quick with comparing the games to eachother, even tho its tempting.
On July 11 2010 13:02 Hautamaki wrote: Let's not despair yet. I'm one of the ultra old-school guys that played SC before BW and BW is what introduced quite a lot of the micro and depth of SC. For example before M&Ms and Lurkers TvZ battles were extremely straight forward. And DTs are largely what led to terrans learning how to use spider mines properly in PvT. There is still a huge potential for SC2 to catch up to BW with 2 expansions on the way, and in the meantime SC2 is still more than fun enough to play while we wait for SC2 games to reach the art of BW.
Brilliantly said. Its exactly what I have allways thought and allways try to express to everyone with a negative mindset.
On July 13 2010 17:37 mitsoz wrote: You know what the problem is..
The sc2 dev team had no idea about these things.. Isn't it ironic? The company never really understood its game. They started making sc2 with the goal of creating units "as exciting as possible" and they failed miserably, because they didn't understand what makes a unit exciting in the terms of starcraft gameplay. Sc1 units are cooler than sc2's will ever be.
Its a sad day when we realize that game makers are not game players. I wonder how many SC2 designers were above D- on ICC, or even knew what it was?
I wonder how many of them watched pro games or talked to the coaches in Korea to see what really made the game.
I don't agree. You are only nostalgic about BW and your skill at that good old game.
You can't say micro dynamics are deteriorated, they are just different. It's hard to admit that you need to improve and learn a game that you feel have played for so long. But SC2 is not BW dynamic wise, so you write a conservative article about how it was better before. It is just different.
So imho, the new spells and stuff don't shut down dynamics, they create new ones that we havn't seen yet. For example, if you are aware about force fields you don't try to snipe a few units and then pull back to your siege line. Because you know you'll get caught. (The dynamic would be to send a few cloaked ghosts before?) If you see a bunch of High templars, you spread your units better, you burrow your roaches, you flank with lings, you use HT immobility or slowness. Those are dynamics too, that are yet to be discovered, improved and rehearsed.
The pathing, the spell cast, the auto mining, the MBS, etc, allows you to use you APM in micromanaging your units and we are undoubtfully going to see impressive dynamics in the future. They won't be the same as in BW, and i'm sorry for you.
About the key timing windows, you'll eventually find other ones, it is just the beta....
The problem is that right now and in the near future, a lot of people think sc2 just isn't as exciting or possess the wow factor that broodwar does. Yet there's already a (Blizzard backed) movement to quickly phase out broodwar and replace it with sc2. Why replace something that has worked, that for 10 years has provided all of us with a quality game that we never tired of playing or watching?
Sure, it's still in beta. Sure, sc2 might be the game of all games in a couple years. It might even surpass broodwar in gameplay when the expansions come out. Or it might flop. The point is these arguments aren't valid because they're not at all falsifiable.
I played a lot of SC2 when I first got hold of it. It's new, it's shiny, the interface is easier. But is the experience as gripping, is the gameplay give me the same tingle as when I play broodwar? Absoutely not. If people enjoy SC2 based on its own merits, then they can go right ahead. If I happen to like SC2 more than broodwar after it's developed for a while, I'll join in. But as long as the life of StarCraft continues to get sucked out by a new game that doesn't deliver simply because it's new and more polished, I'm gonna complain. Sorry guys.
On July 14 2010 20:30 EnderSC wrote: I don't agree. You are only nostalgic about BW and your skill at that good old game.
You can't say micro dynamics are deteriorated, they are just different. It's hard to admit that you need to improve and learn a game that you feel have played for so long. But SC2 is not BW dynamic wise, so you write a conservative article about how it was better before. It is just different.
So imho, the new spells and stuff don't shut down dynamics, they create new ones that we havn't seen yet. For example, if you are aware about force fields you don't try to snipe a few units and then pull back to your siege line. Because you know you'll get caught. (The dynamic would be to send a few cloaked ghosts before?) If you see a bunch of High templars, you spread your units better, you burrow your roaches, you flank with lings, you use HT immobility or slowness. Those are dynamics too, that are yet to be discovered, improved and rehearsed.
The pathing, the spell cast, the auto mining, the MBS, etc, allows you to use you APM in micromanaging your units and we are undoubtfully going to see impressive dynamics in the future. They won't be the same as in BW, and i'm sorry for you.
About the key timing windows, you'll eventually find other ones, it is just the beta....
There have been a lot of similar replies. And I agree: SC2 and Brood War are different games. The priority of the skill set required to be "good" is different. The way the units interact or different. But to all the people listing examples showing "brilliant micro possibilities" or "new dynamics" in SC2, I have a question: have you really watched/played SC1? Because I have done plenty of both. And it's just not the same; none of your examples even come close. Maybe you all are right. Maybe it's nostalgia holding me back. But I pointed to clear issues in SC2 that take away the interactivity of battles. I mean, I've won games by dropping banelings into mineral lines and laying baneling mine traps. I've experimented with cute shit here and there. But when it comes to big battle micro, I want to feel like I need to do something besides "put my roaches in front of my hydras." And really, I don't think "nostalgia" attacks have much merit because I'd like to think I'm playing SC2 with an open mind. Hell, I'm hardly even watching BW anymore, much less playing it. I've nearly made a full conversion to SC2. I'm happy with my skill level, even though I know there are plenty of ways I can improve. But after hundreds and hundreds of games, you start seeing things that just aren't there (or, if they are, are diluted). Interactivity and dynamics are among those things. I'm saying this just to let you know I didn't decide to start playing SC2, go "oop, not BW 2.0," and give up on it. Rather, SC2 is a game I love. And I really want it to improve and be the best it can be. Right now, I think there are still some areas where SC2 can be better. To everyone saying "oh, give it time. We've still got two expansions," that's great. So SC2 may or may not be the simply amazing game it could be. But why take that chance? What's wrong in pointing out areas in which the game can be improved? What's wrong with trying to nudge the game along so that it can reach its full potential? Would you rather stand back and watch the game you love maybe succeed and maybe fail, or would you rather do something about it? I mean, maybe you have some other game like WoW or HoN or LoL or D3 to turn to. But, as for me, I have nothing else besides Starcraft. Again, I'm sorry if the original article came off sounding nostalgic. Or if I somehow offended anyone with the all "nostalgia." If I could rewrite it without that, I would. But I really want everyone to try to read this objectively, and not just write it off as "just another BW-is-better" rant. Because there are a lot of points that I made that you can't just dismiss as "oh, it's just a different game" or "oh, it'll fix itself eventually."
So many people have come into this thread and presumed that Saracen is just nostalgic for BW and that TL is elitist and blah blah blah. Those are the worst kinds of arguments I can possibly fathom. First off, it just shows they haven't read the article, understood the article or appreciated the point of view of the article. Secondly, Saracen is actually a surprisingly good Zerg user (one of the best if not the best non-liquid staff we have imo). He knows what he's talking about when it comes to SC2 and is certainly not a BW die hard wanting SC2 to fail.
SC2 is made to please both new RTS gamers and old ones. Older games tend to require a higher skill level to play so naturally the old gamers would prefer playing BW due to its higher difficulty as compared to SC2. I still love both BW and SC2 equally though. It is a different game altogether.
Some very valid and interesting points. Although I think we should keep in mind that the game we all love so dearly is actually Brood War, and not the original SC. I'm just praying and clutching to the fact that there are two more chapters to this saga for Blizzard to correct or tweak aspects of the game. Lets all hope that Blizzard listens to the die-hard and veteran players and there inputs. I'm tired of all of the catering they've been giving to casual gamers and Facebook tweens!
Games evolve. They become easier and more accessable for the common man. Remember original video games? Where you had to type out commands and know basic to be able to play?look what they are today. I think PC gaming is past its apex, but that doesn't mean that some good games won't come out here or there, suh as Starcraft 2. Most of the emphasis is now on consoles.
Anyway, I would like to make a certain point: they still have shooting competitions using only a certain type of 1870's rifle. Starcraft is never going away. People will still have it, and even twenty years from now, people will still turn it in for nostalgia. There will still be LAN parties, and assuming that Blizzard doesn't discontinue Battle.net 1.0, there will still be tournaments. In south Korea, at very least.
Keep in mind that the game is still very new, there are two expansions to go...
Anyhow -- I think the decision to nerf the overpowered micro spells and units was obviously deliberate, and we have to assume it will stay that way.
Nonetheless, I think the article misses some points -- the small EMP and blink are excellent examples of micro-intensive spells that are still key.
Re: exciting moments/timing attacks, you still see a lot of that in the race for detectors vs DT, or the necessity of constantly re-balancing your army on the fly to respond to changing unit composition on the other side.
banelings make micro battles very dynamic and fun. also blink. i totaly do not agree with the forcefield part. the micro involved is different and very dynamic actually. most ppl just dont bother to micro against it. also it is not true at all that units in sc2 deal more damage.
sc2 micro leans a bit more towards positionioning and tactics. this article is well written but 2 onesided and biased for my taste.
What about blink, what about borrowing supply depots, what about the new nydus, what about warp technology and warp prisms, what about concussive shells, what about reapers, what about colossus, what about the acceleration capabilities of each race (krono boost, mules, extra larvas), what about gravity beams and the list can go on ...
Starcraft is more dynamic than ever, to me it seems you are afraid of change or maybe you got old and melancholic, no ofence.
On July 24 2010 02:31 painprophet wrote: Well written article but clearly over reacting.
Force fields "shut down dynamics", come on ...
What about blink, what about borrowing supply depots, what about the new nydus, what about warp technology and warp prisms, what about concussive shells, what about reapers, what about colossus, what about the acceleration capabilities of each race (krono boost, mules, extra larvas), what about gravity beams and the list can go on ...
Starcraft is more dynamic than ever, to me it seems you are afraid of change or maybe you got old and melancholic, no ofence.
I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "dynamics." Dynamics, in this article at least, is the interaction between players on the battlefield. How do you micro against force field? How do you micro against concussive shells? The whole point of this article is that there needs to be more player-player action in the fights that matter. Also, the whole point of the article is to talk about big battle micro, not cutesy tricks you can do, or macro mechanics.
Please read my previous replies in this thread if you think I'm "afraid of change" or got "old and melancholic."
About microing away from concussive shells, you usually have to run because you engaged prematurely against a superior force. I'd say your lack of scouting can no longer be saved by control, for better or worse. It also means the terran player has to chase and kill without committing too much or finding himself out of position if you are reinforcing. I don't find it to be a bad dynamic. With moving while burrowed and blink, it's also really easy to catch a kiting terran out of position.
FF is another beast however. On a ramp it is hard to prevent unfavorable results through control. Hopefully larger maps start emerging. In open areas it is interesting to see people's choices on where FF goes or whether it would simply be better to throw up your shield.
Easier casting and macro may change the flavor of competition, but I don't think players are in the right mindset for this game. Since creating your army is easier with MBS, that should free more focus for players to fight on more than one or two fronts. Harassment should be very interesting. Certain aspects of the game getting easier means a greater player can spend more time controlling, positioning and scouting his opponent.
I'm ready to watch and learn as Starcraft 2 grows. There may be growing pains, but in the hands of skilled players I see good things coming.
On July 24 2010 04:21 TheGrimace wrote: About microing away from concussive shells, you usually have to run because you engaged prematurely against a superior force. I'd say your lack of scouting can no longer be saved by control, for better or worse. It also means the terran player has to chase and kill without committing too much or finding himself out of position if you are reinforcing. I don't find it to be a bad dynamic. With moving while burrowed and blink, it's also really easy to catch a kiting terran out of position.
FF is another beast however. On a ramp it is hard to prevent unfavorable results through control. Hopefully larger maps start emerging. In open areas it is interesting to see people's choices on where FF goes or whether it would simply be better to throw up your shield.
Easier casting and macro may change the flavor of competition, but I don't think players are in the right mindset for this game. Since creating your army is easier with MBS, that should free more focus for players to fight on more than one or two fronts. Harassment should be very interesting. Certain aspects of the game getting easier means a greater player can spend more time controlling, positioning and scouting his opponent.
I'm ready to watch and learn as Starcraft 2 grows. There may be growing pains, but in the hands of skilled players I see good things coming.
I agree completely with this. I think the future of Starcraft 2 lies with harassment and multitasking. Drops are incredibly potent in this game, even compared to SC:BW. Plus, Blizzard has given us many tools to work with to increase mobility, for example the Nydus Worm and Warp Gates/Prisms. And many traditional drop nullifications such as scourge are gone. I hope in the near future, more players will play around with drop heavy harassment play to capitalize on all of the mobility options given to us. But it's still an entirely different matter from actual down-to-earth micro.
EDIT: hmm, that gives me an idea for another article...
On July 24 2010 05:54 EximoSua2 wrote: Maybe you're just not a kid any more. Ever consider that?
What's that supposed to mean, mister "SaharaDrac of sclegacy.com?" And have you ever considered reading the articles on TL as constructive criticism instead of typical elitist whining and complaining?
On July 24 2010 04:01 Saracen wrote: I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "dynamics." Dynamics, in this article at least, is the interaction between players on the battlefield. How do you micro against force field? How do you micro against concussive shells? The whole point of this article is that there needs to be more player-player action in the fights that matter. Also, the whole point of the article is to talk about big battle micro, not cutesy tricks you can do, or macro mechanics.
Please read my previous replies in this thread if you think I'm "afraid of change" or got "old and melancholic."
You micro away from concussive shells by throwing some force fields . Against force fields use EMP to prevent them from even happening. There's your interaction between players.
I didn't list all those things as being new tricks but new mechanics in SC2, mechanics that bring a wider range of diversity into the game.
On July 24 2010 04:01 Saracen wrote: I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "dynamics." Dynamics, in this article at least, is the interaction between players on the battlefield. How do you micro against force field? How do you micro against concussive shells? The whole point of this article is that there needs to be more player-player action in the fights that matter. Also, the whole point of the article is to talk about big battle micro, not cutesy tricks you can do, or macro mechanics.
Please read my previous replies in this thread if you think I'm "afraid of change" or got "old and melancholic."
You micro away from concussive shells by throwing some force fields . Against force fields use EMP to prevent them from even happening. There's your interaction between players.
I didn't list all those things as being new tricks but new mechanics in SC2, mechanics that bring a wider range of diversity into the game.
These are good points. I'm not saying that dynamics are nonexistent in SC2, just that they are lacking. And I tried to give technical reasons for that.
Brood War is amazing, because you couldn't control more than 12 units at once, needed to pretty much individually micromanage every single caster, and had mechanics which could randomly swing the balance in your favour, nullifying any sort of strategic advantage you accrued up to this point.
SC2B sucks, because you can split your control groups in any way you wish and need to actually find and exploit weaknesses in your opponent's unit composition, positioning and micro, as opposed to just blanketing the field with storms and relying on spider bombs to take out 10x their worth in minerals.
I won't deny that SC1 battles are pretty scenic and fairly intense, with sides throwing overpowered mechanics at each other in rapid succession. It makes for a nice amount of flashy stuff on the screen and for good material for Korean girls to go SQUEEEEE over the VODs. It is an important element of a spectator sport, an i guess it is what many people are missing.
When it comes to pure strategy, though, SC2 seems deeper.
On July 26 2010 22:16 Anfi wrote: So, let me get this straight.
Brood War is amazing, because you couldn't control more than 12 units at once, needed to pretty much individually micromanage every single caster, and had mechanics which could randomly swing the balance in your favour, nullifying any sort of strategic advantage you accrued up to this point.
SC2B sucks, because you can split your control groups in any way you wish and need to actually find and exploit weaknesses in your opponent's unit composition, positioning and micro, as opposed to just blanketing the field with storms and relying on spider bombs to take out 10x their worth in minerals.
I won't deny that SC1 battles are pretty scenic and fairly intense, with sides throwing overpowered mechanics at each other in rapid succession. It makes for a nice amount of flashy stuff on the screen and for good material for Korean girls to go SQUEEEEE over the VODs. It is an important element of a spectator sport, an i guess it is what many people are missing.
When it comes to pure strategy, though, SC2 seems deeper.
So, let me get this straight.
SC2 is amazing because you rely on "strategy" (i.e. army composition and unit positioning) to win. God forbid someone with actual skill play the game because as long as you build the right units and decide where to attack correctly, you should come out on top. Thus, the best thinker wins, because he knows exactly what to build, and when to build it. This allows for an ENORMOUS skill cap, because maybe after playing the game for, I don't know, a year or so, only a few talented individuals will have figured out unit counters by then.
SC1 is just about whoever can "throw overpowered mechanics at each other" the best, which sucks because the outcome of an otherwise predetermined game can change because of these, and it allows for horrible things such as comebacks, which are thankfully nonexistent in SC2. And of course, all of these things are "random." Jangbi just randomly happened to press "t" fifty times to decimate that tank line. There's no such thing as micro in SC1. It's all just abusing random overpowered abilities, which is terrible because it gets in the way of the IMMENSE DEPTH of strategic advantage from army composition and positioning.
And forget all of the established timings and intricacies established throughout twelve years of Brood War. SC2 is the "deeper" game.
I love both games - I'm neither pro-BW nor pro-SC2, but your arguments are completely ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that you lack knowledge in both games. So, much like I don't give my opinion about Russian politics, maybe you should refrain from giving your opinion about the SC1 and SC2 until you're a little more informed.
yeah maybe this is true but alot of the pros havent switched over to sc2. When that happens and if the game is still just as boring to watch, then therell be a problem...