EPTPublic Profile for CHEONSOYUN
General Profile:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CHEONSOYUN's Public Profile:
StarCraft 1 vs StarCraft 2, or, Mechanics vs Strategy
Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices.
(In fact I feel like putting a gigantic aside here in these ( things what ever they are called. Lots of people from StarCraft 1 complain about the “problems” with StarCraft 2. Now for the record, not one of these people loved SC1 more than I. Anyways, lots of the complaints have to do with the missing beauty of things like perfect Mutalisk Micro, or the perfect Reaver Drop, or the fun of microing Vultures. These things are beautiful, and there’s nothing quite like them in SC2. But, if SC2 had come first, there would be people complaining that SC1 lacks the deeper strategy that SC2 offers. These strategic choices that people are making have their own beauty…beauty which can be pretty hard to see. End of aside.)
(Oh, by the way, here’s a second aside. Part of the reason why SC2 is so strategic is the hard counters. The units we love to hate, the Marauder, the Roach and the Immortal actually themselves add a whole different type of depth that just doesn’t exist in SC1. These units truly punish you for poor moves or decisions, in ways nothing from SC1 ever could. There’s a lot more to the strategic depth than those of course, just a fun little side point I wanted to make.)
The deeper strategic aspect of SC2 plays into why Rain and PartinG can preform so well without the backing of a KeSPA team for multiple reasons.
Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices.
(In fact I feel like putting a gigantic aside here in these ( things what ever they are called. Lots of people from StarCraft 1 complain about the “problems” with StarCraft 2. Now for the record, not one of these people loved SC1 more than I. Anyways, lots of the complaints have to do with the missing beauty of things like perfect Mutalisk Micro, or the perfect Reaver Drop, or the fun of microing Vultures. These things are beautiful, and there’s nothing quite like them in SC2. But, if SC2 had come first, there would be people complaining that SC1 lacks the deeper strategy that SC2 offers. These strategic choices that people are making have their own beauty…beauty which can be pretty hard to see. End of aside.)
(Oh, by the way, here’s a second aside. Part of the reason why SC2 is so strategic is the hard counters. The units we love to hate, the Marauder, the Roach and the Immortal actually themselves add a whole different type of depth that just doesn’t exist in SC1. These units truly punish you for poor moves or decisions, in ways nothing from SC1 ever could. There’s a lot more to the strategic depth than those of course, just a fun little side point I wanted to make.)
The deeper strategic aspect of SC2 plays into why Rain and PartinG can preform so well without the backing of a KeSPA team for multiple reasons.
