|
I've seen it compared to both. Like chess starcraft is all about strategy, positioning, and predicting your opponents moves. Like poker starcraft has elements of chance, bluff, and hidden information.
So which do you think its more like?
Sluggaslamoo made some good points about SC v SC2
On December 22 2010 18:10 sluggaslamoo wrote:
BW: Heavily influenced by making the most of your units: Chess
Factors:
Easier to defend against cheese and all-ins. Defense is more often than not more powerful than offense.
Worker scouting against Z, worker glitching, map-hack scans, spider-mines, lurkers, tanks. Like chess, you have a lot more information to work with. It then comes down to what you want to do with your units. Going one gate reaver, and losing your shuttle to a turret is the equivalent of losing your queen in the first few moves.
Unit micro can change outcome of the whole game, reavers, dragoons vs tank/mines, wraiths, mutalisk, scourge cloning.
Macro can make up for wrong unit compositions. Hard counters also don't counter as hard.
SC2: Heavily influenced by making the most of limited information: Poker
Factors:
Offense is more often than not more powerful than defense.
Much easier to hide information due to Z being able to kill worker scouts with slow-lings, scans cost money, observers are more expensive and contends with building other necessary units like colossi/immortal.
mules/queens/chrono makes all-ins more powerful.
Early very powerful hard-counters means build-order losses occur much more frequently, couple this with very limited information, many games can feel like a coin-flip.
|
ideally, chess. realistically, poker.
|
it should be like chess, but it is more like poker.
|
I heard it was just a game, like love.
|
It's neither.
Stop trying to make a comparison.
|
Neither. It's its own game.
Also, please put more effort into your threads in the future, this is just sad.
Edit: Much better ^_^
|
its a question, im not trying to write a book or anything. i just wanted to know whether most people thought it was more like chess or poker.
i know it's its own game and not one the same as either of the others(kinda obvious). i was just wondering which is was CLOSER to
|
BW: Heavily influenced by making the most of your units: Chess
Factors:
Easier to defend against cheese and all-ins. Defense is more often than not more powerful than offense.
Worker scouting against Z, worker glitching, map-hack scans, spider-mines, lurkers, tanks. Like chess, you have a lot more information to work with. It then comes down to what you want to do with your units. Going one gate reaver, and losing your shuttle to a turret is the equivalent of losing your queen in the first few moves.
Unit micro can change outcome of the whole game, reavers, dragoons vs tank/mines, wraiths, mutalisk, scourge cloning.
Macro can make up for wrong unit compositions. Hard counters also don't counter as hard.
SC2: Heavily influenced by making the most of limited information: Poker
Factors:
Offense is more often than not more powerful than defense.
Much easier to hide information due to Z being able to kill worker scouts with slow-lings, scans cost money, observers are more expensive and contends with building other necessary units like colossi/immortal.
mules/queens/chrono makes all-ins more powerful.
Early very powerful hard-counters means build-order losses occur much more frequently, couple this with very limited information, many games can feel like a coin-flip.
|
you make good points sluggaslamoo. thanks for your input
ive especially noticed the ease of denying scouts for all races and the increased strength of all ins from the macro mechanics
|
You can't fuck up a single move chess but in sc2 you can.
You can't never be 100% sure what kind of hand your opponent has in poker but if you scout an fe in sc2 it is an fe then.
It doesn't matter how fast or precise you are in chess or poker (ok <5min games in chess maybe kinda)
Even rally driving requires you to think ahead and have good reactions.
So imo it's neither. It's RTS at it's finest.
|
Stupid thread, there's a million similar ones, and not to mention everybody is just going to say neither -.-
|
|
|
Kimaker United States. December 22 2010 18:08.
Neither. It's its own game.
Also, please put more effort into your threads in the future, this is just sad.
These kinds of posts are either a failure of imagination or sheer intellectual laziness. For one, why the need to classify something as one or the other. Life is so big that one thing is definitely bound to be similar to another completely disparate thing.
The OP doesn't even bother to contribute anything where discussion could take off. It just makes vague generalizations and proceeds to go forum shopping. Shame.
|
To me, SC is more like stock trading.
But that's just me.
|
On December 22 2010 18:03 arterian wrote:
It's neither.
Stop trying to make a comparison.
Neither? Id say is poker and chess had a baby its name wound be starcraft II
|
It's more of a coin toss.
|
its like a really complex real time version of chess, i guess.
|
It depends on which starcraft you're referring to really, just as slug outlined. What else is there to discuss?
|
On December 22 2010 18:14 grinTOR wrote:
Stupid thread, there's a million similar ones, and not to mention everybody is just going to say neither -.-
yea there have been a lot of threads on this already. however, he does ask which of the two is sc the most similar to. this is not answerable with yes or no. everyone saying "neither" is pretty much going offtopic by idiotically interpreting the question as a yes/no question.
|
On December 22 2010 18:31 xtfftc wrote:
It's more of a coin toss.
no its more of a coin zerg LOLOLOLOLOL
|
TvT is more like chess. (Positioning is everything, there is only 3~4 viable openings anyways)
TvP is more like poker. (DT, Void Ray, Colo, Fast Expo, 4 gate)
TvZ is a mixture of both. (Don't get flanked, know whether if enemy is Muta/Roach/Ling/Bling heavy)
From Terran perspective 
|
I don't understand how starcraft is like poker...there is no randomness in it. Stupid comparasion if you ask me.
|
there's no macro in chess or poker. I would say sc2 is more like a sport. Execution is so much more important than strategy.
There's way less luck in sc2 than poker, especially at a professional level. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you're all in AA still loses to KK 20% of the time. There's also more information in sc2. You can sacrifice your attention elsewhere briefly to scout your opponent. There's nothing quite as good as a scanner sweep in poker.
I'd say taking macro out of the picture, it's like chess with a dash of uncertainty.
|
On December 22 2010 18:56 RoyalCheese wrote:
I don't understand how starcraft is like poker...there is no randomness in it. Stupid comparasion if you ask me.
You must not have watched a lot of sc2 huh
|
How can it be like Poker?
Where is Poker ever like you go over look in his cards change your hand till you beat what he has ???
I never feeled like playing a card or bordgame while i played Starcraft and the thing is i hate board and Cardgames thats a mainreason to play videogames :/
|
It's like Rock, Scissors, Paper in 3D
|
On December 22 2010 18:49 roflcopter420 wrote:no its more of a coin zerg LOLOLOLOLOL
ok this made me chuckle, especially with your name XD
|
My god, this thread consists of either "sc2 is nothing like poker, you dont have a deck of cards" or "sc2 is nothing like chess, u dun haev any horses lol".
IMO the most important difference between chess and poker is that chess has no hidden information. So I think sc2 is more like poker.
|
I don't think SC2 is really analogous to chess or poker. I do think the game is more like Chess, if I had to pick one. Though chess does not have limited information, it does involve deception and mind games which is a big feature in SC2.
Obviously Poker emphasizes deception and mind games more than Chess, but it really lacks a lot of the other strategic elements like positioning and movement restrictions. I do suppose that in Poker you have to manage your money, while you don't have to do that in Chess.
I still think Chess is closer to SC2 than Poker. Really though, I find the discussion to be rather pointless. SC2 is a lot more complicated than both Chess and Poker.
I don't understand how starcraft is like poker...there is no randomness in it. Stupid comparasion if you ask me.
Actually both the spawning positions and the direction that players initially choose to scout make very big differences in the way a game plays out. Starcraft is not devoid of coin tossing.
|
Personally, I always think of StarCraft like real-time chess, but that was because I was quite the chess player in my youth and having studied it a lot, I see the subtle nuances quite a bit. It can be compared to poker as well, but poker, although a game of great skill, has a certain factor of luck that makes it more about the playing the player and less of the game itself. 7-2 offsuit can win a tourney, but like chess, it is very very hard at high level of play to really fool your opponent as greatly as that. You never really see top chess players trying to do a fool's mate or something like that. The bluff factor is high in poker, not very common in chess or StarCraft.
Chess has a set of moves, opening, midgame, endgame, and a strong emphasis on space control and containment with huge factors of initiative and pacing that StarCraft has and poker does not have as much of.
|
Definitely chess - because in Poker (as good players will tell you) it doesn't really matter how your hands look like, all that matters is, how you play them.
In SC2 even a noob will win with mass voidrays against your mass-roaches, there's no way you can "outsmart" players with pure bluffs.
If you wanna compare it with poker, it would be like a game where everyone had to show his cards at the end all the time and where it wouldn't be possible to force folds.
|
The actual game is chess, but the mental game is poker.
Lets meet in the middle and say it's like Stratego : P
|
SC is more like a chess/boxing combo than chess or poker.
|
On December 22 2010 19:34 TheAmazombie wrote:
Personally, I always think of StarCraft like real-time chess, but that was because I was quite the chess player in my youth and having studied it a lot, I see the subtle nuances quite a bit. It can be compared to poker as well, but poker, although a game of great skill, has a certain factor of luck that makes it more about the playing the player and less of the game itself. 7-2 offsuit can win a tourney, but like chess, it is very very hard at high level of play to really fool your opponent as greatly as that. You never really see top chess players trying to do a fool's mate or something like that. The bluff factor is high in poker, not very common in chess or StarCraft.
Chess has a set of moves, opening, midgame, endgame, and a strong emphasis on space control and containment with huge factors of initiative and pacing that StarCraft has and poker does not have as much of.
great argument imo. I wonder if the poker comparisons have a lot more to do with how poker has become established as a 'sport', and how much of the sc2 community would like to emulate that kind of structure.
|
It's more like battleship where you can move your pieces and there are ten turns a second.
|
Saying Starcraft 2 is like chess or poker is like saying all board games are the same and can also be compared to tennis, it's just a non comparison and doesn't make sense, and I don't get this thing that people feel the need to compare starcraft to chess or poker, what's even the point?
|
I match your question with a question:
Are bananas more like apples, pears, or peaches?
|
The bluff factor exsists in starcraft as well.
It is a great combination of the two games imo. As for bluffing? You know they have a scout in your base, start a building; kill scout, cancel building, go different route? AKA Bluff.
As for the luck factor? Well, that is something to be desired. You could get lucky your opponent forgets about the doom drop they had waiting. You could get lucky they missed a cycle. They could even forget to build that depo, pylon, ovie. There are chance factors of luck in the game as well.
Building position? Unit composition, and unit placement. All relate to chess.
Anyway; the game is in itself amazing. Just enjoy it, stop trying to compare it to everything else as it in itself stands alone as a pinicale of achievement.
|
On December 22 2010 20:27 Malminos wrote:
I match your question with a question:
Are bananas more like apples, pears, or peaches?
definitely pears because of the skin
useawhatididthar
|
having played a ton of both poker and sc, I'd say there are alot of similarities between them. At the lower levels, fundamentals are the key to winning. The higher up u go, adjusting ur ranges/play becomes the deciding factor. That said, sc is a way better game : ) It stays fun, poker becomes a chore imo.
As for which is more similar, definitely poker. Both are strategic games which are real time and are of limited information, while chess is turn based and u have absolute information.
|
On December 22 2010 20:32 Silidons wrote:
useawhatididthar
Please everyone stop using these awful cliché's, they are so terrible it's not even funny, like literally.
|
Poker,
If he has better units[cards] than you. And he goes allin. You're dead.
|
|
|
well if you don't scout, its more like a poker coz you don't know what your opponent have then suddenly reveal his card and you lose (fast banshees, proxy, 2 rax, cheese etc..)
I think TVT is pretty much closer to chess since its all about territory and making a move inch by inch (leaping tanks, nuke, vikings etc..)
|
"Hard counters also don't counter as hard."
Really? Are people still trying to argue this? Outside of immortals that's completely untrue. The whole post the OP quoted is the tired OLD argument of 'BW is better!'. Trying to say macro/micro don't really matter in SC2 and it's all about RPS/all-ins is completely ridiculous at this stage of the game.
|
On December 22 2010 21:22 oxxo wrote:
"Hard counters also don't counter as hard."
Really? Are people still trying to argue this? Outside of immortals that's completely untrue. The whole post the OP quoted is the tired OLD argument of 'BW is better!'. Trying to say macro/micro don't really matter in SC2 and it's all about RPS/all-ins is completely ridiculous at this stage of the game.
omg. BW didnt have Banelings, Collossi or Thors, which are easy to micro in comparison to their outcome. How can anyone disagree to the fact, that counters are much harder in SC2 than in BW?
|
On December 22 2010 18:49 roflcopter420 wrote:
no its more of a coin zerg LOLOLOLOLOL
Its much the same as milking a cow
|
i wish people wouldn't keep bringing out this whole 'scans cost money' thing
give it a rest
|
Only elitist Broodwar nerds would ever seriously compare Starcraft with chess.
|
On December 22 2010 18:50 Touch wrote:TvT is more like chess. (Positioning is everything, there is only 3~4 viable openings anyways) TvP is more like poker. (DT, Void Ray, Colo, Fast Expo, 4 gate) TvZ is a mixture of both. (Don't get flanked, know whether if enemy is Muta/Roach/Ling/Bling heavy) From Terran perspective
Here's my 2 cent:
ZvZ is more like chess.
ZvT is more like poker.
ZvP is a mixture of both.
And honestly, I don't like poker much.
|
On December 22 2010 18:13 Delarchon wrote:
You can't fuck up a single move chess but in sc2 you can.
You can't never be 100% sure what kind of hand your opponent has in poker but if you scout an fe in sc2 it is an fe then.
It doesn't matter how fast or precise you are in chess or poker (ok <5min games in chess maybe kinda)
Even rally driving requires you to think ahead and have good reactions.
So imo it's neither. It's RTS at it's finest.
In chess, you do have to be precise, and you can indeed fuck up with a single move.
|
wtf does this even mean. if i'm doing something that is essentially the correct decision in chess, i will win. in poker, you make the right decision and lose to a royal flush for some fuckall bullshit luck reason.
in sc2, if i'm countering roaches with marauders in even numbers, a legion of broodlords aren't going to suddenly appear on top of me for some fuckall bullshit luck reason.
|
Its chess on speed with limited information
|
ZvZ is like tossing a coin.
ZvT is like poker, but you reinplace the pokerface with a trollface when the terran goes marine/scv allin.
ZvP is Starcraft 2.
TvT is World of Tanks.
TvP is kind of like chess i guess.
|
Its like a Chess where you can't see your enemies unit until you are close to them.
|
Cannot be compared even through the most fudged, vague and non sensical comparisons.
|
On December 22 2010 22:30 MisterPuppy wrote:
if i'm doing something that is essentially the correct decision in chess, i will win.
It is generally accepted that no matter how many good moves you make in chess, you will not win unless your opponent makes a mistake.
|
Under any reasonable analysis, Starcraft is like neither. One is a turn based game which is all intellectual and no dexterity, the other is a card game of chance.
SC2 is most like Command and Conquer.
|
On December 22 2010 18:02 k20 wrote:
I heard it was just a game, like love.
Haha, nice reference :D
|
Can we just accept that Starcraft 2 is a damn good RTS and leave it at that? These comparisons are pointless.
|
On December 22 2010 20:30 RaptureLights wrote:
As for the luck factor? Well, that is something to be desired. You could get lucky your opponent forgets about the doom drop they had waiting. You could get lucky they missed a cycle. They could even forget to build that depo, pylon, ovie. There are chance factors of luck in the game as well.
That would be neither luck nor any randomness, it's just pure skill or lack of skill. If i forget to inject larva it's because my skill is too low, not because i had bad luck or you had too much luck.
Well, the only luck factor would be if one of my cats jumps in front of the monitor and i accidently rightclick into your army, but that is no factor of the gameplay.
SC2 has no randomness and no luck to it. If it had either then playing the same game with every click exactly at the same time and same position the outcome would be different. Yes, people say that someone "got lucky" because his dropshipped slipped past detection, but it's actually bad play of his opponent because his detection wasn't good enough.
|
I'm going to say Chess. When people lost in the GSL, it wasn't because of "random luck-based scouting factors", it was because of mistakes that they made. People aren't losing after making "all the correct decisions" like they do in poker.
|
no one attacks in starcraft knowing it has a 60% chance to succeed. In poker, you go all-in heads up on 60-40 odds. starcraft is like chess with fog of war.
|
it's like playing Chess blind-folded. I don't think it's like poker at all.
|
The similarities between SC2 and poker are mainly psychologically related. Sure there are elements of imperfect information, information control, and gambling in SC2, but mechanically it's very different. There aren't well defined odds and you can't really control how much you "bet" in SC2.
Aside from the information aspect of the game though, it's closer to a combination of chess and go than just chess. Unlike chess, and like go, you pretty much start the game with a clean board. The units are like pieces in chess. They are mobile and behave very differently. Buildings are like pieces in go. They can be used for territory control and are placed (constructed) by the player and captured (destroyed) by the opponent.
This isn't a perfect analogy but it's closer than comparing SC2 to just chess and poker.
|
On December 22 2010 18:27 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:03 arterian wrote:
It's neither.
Stop trying to make a comparison. Neither? Id say is poker and chess had a baby its name wound be starcraft II
exactly. i'd also like to point out that observers are being made cheaper in the next patch, though it (the patch) is not out yet so that might be changed.
|
On December 22 2010 23:29 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 20:30 RaptureLights wrote:
As for the luck factor? Well, that is something to be desired. You could get lucky your opponent forgets about the doom drop they had waiting. You could get lucky they missed a cycle. They could even forget to build that depo, pylon, ovie. There are chance factors of luck in the game as well.
That would be neither luck nor any randomness, it's just pure skill or lack of skill. If i forget to inject larva it's because my skill is too low, not because i had bad luck or you had too much luck. Well, the only luck factor would be if one of my cats jumps in front of the monitor and i accidently rightclick into your army, but that is no factor of the gameplay. SC2 has no randomness and no luck to it. If it had either then playing the same game with every click exactly at the same time and same position the outcome would be different. Yes, people say that someone "got lucky" because his dropshipped slipped past detection, but it's actually bad play of his opponent because his detection wasn't good enough.
Incorrect. Spawning positions on 4-player maps involves luck. Sending your first worker scout in the right direction and scout at the right timing could also be considered "luck"
|
On another note, the psychological and information aspect of SC2 is probably closer to other card games, like magic, than poker.
In magic for example, your deck differs from your opponent's deck and there isn't really anything to wager. Also, land is both the resource and the resource gather units. This is much closer to the economy mechanic in SC2 than chips in poker.
|
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic.
|
more comparable to chess, as you get random cards in poker and have to do something with it. In sc2 you get the units you want, just like in chess. Also you need to prepare to bring out your big units, just like in Chess. (though to add more strategie you have the base system added).
Chess is also about Mind games, may it be that you fake the shaky hands so the opponent things you are nervous, or that you make a bad looking move that gives you an advantage later on. So a pokerface would also be important in chess.
Guess the biggest problem on this question is that pokar and chess are quiet similar to each other.
But since i like chess more its chess.
|
Limited information and deception is what makes it like poker. Everything else feels like chess to me. Neither of those two games account for the army-economy building and balance that Starcraft require.
|
I don't think SCII should be compared to chess or poker...
It's a completely different game.
|
being a professional poker player I can tell you neither SC2 or Chess has made me cry or brought me to my highest highs or lowest lows, poker has. Poker is its own world, you cant compare to games that dont have swings like it. Maybe if the GSL was a 10k buying tourney then we could see some emotion.
|
It's like Poker, except if you're terran, you can scan.
But in all seriousness, it's not like either of them. In Chess, you know what your opponent is doing at all times, and it's up to you to understand what he's planning and counter it while he counters you. It's a game of foresight without deception. In Poker, you don't know what your opponent has. You only know what you have, and you make your decisions based only on your knowledge of probability. There's no countering and reacting to your opponent.
SC2 is like SC2. It's its own genre.
|
It has similar thematic elements to Chess positioning, tempo, development ect. It also has common themes with Poker's randomness, but thats largely the lack of early scouting and the huge variety of builds flying about at the moment, in 4 years time that will be alot less variety.
Alot of people seem to be missing the point of this thread. The point isn't to say something like "There are knights in Chess that are good early game, and SC2 has stalkers that are good early and they kind of look like Knights". The point is to say what strategic elements the games have in common.
In chess the better player almost always wins, in Starcraft it definitly isn't that way at the moment. Chess is a good model for what elements an RTS should deliver, poker certainly is not. I don't think Starcraft 2 is too much like either at the moment, but it should definitly work towards maintaing the core strategic concepts in chess, not the odds manipulation of poker, and hoping you get lucky a few games in a row.
Example of someone who plays SC2 like it's Chess; Gretorp, Jinro, Idra, MC
Example of people who play it like it's poker: Most Koreans in GSL R64
|
On December 23 2010 00:11 CherubDown wrote:
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic.
In Sc2 you bet all the time. Every single investment is a bet based on your limited information. Every time you build a marauder you have an EV for that unit. Same goes for workers, building, teching, attacking, bunkers etc. etc. Whatever you put your money in you expect it to be worth more than the investment for you to eventually win the game.
Poker is basicly risk taking based on limited information. Same as Sc2.
|
|
|
Neither, its better than both ^^
|
I don't think that sc2 is a "bet" game.
On the highest level, I think macro/micro/strategy/experience will win against unexpected lucky coinflips.
Like in poker, players have to calculate the risks they are taking, but this is (i.m.o.) closer to chess than to poker, because it rather depends on "solid-sc2-skills" like experience, strategies, bo's, micro/macro than on "bluffing".
What I think is the biggest difference to both chess and poker is the lack of informations. You DO know what KK or Ace 10 is approximately worth. You do see what there is on the table (or on the board) but in sc2, you got to get those informations.
Are 40 Colossi good? - Well it depends!
|
both really
the game is a lot about exploiting the opponents mistakes really
|
On December 23 2010 00:38 Armsved wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2010 00:11 CherubDown wrote:
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic. In Sc2 you bet all the time. Every single investment is a bet based on your limited information. Every time you build a marauder you have an EV for that unit. Same goes for workers, building, teching, attacking, bunkers etc. etc. Whatever you put your money in you expect it to be worth more than the investment for you to eventually win the game. Poker is basicly risk taking based on limited information. Same as Sc2.
One observer, overlord sac, or scanner sweep and you can see what the opponent has. In poker you get no glances at the opponents cards. I don't buy your argument at all.
|
On December 23 2010 00:52 CherubDown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2010 00:38 Armsved wrote:On December 23 2010 00:11 CherubDown wrote:
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic. In Sc2 you bet all the time. Every single investment is a bet based on your limited information. Every time you build a marauder you have an EV for that unit. Same goes for workers, building, teching, attacking, bunkers etc. etc. Whatever you put your money in you expect it to be worth more than the investment for you to eventually win the game. Poker is basicly risk taking based on limited information. Same as Sc2. One observer, overlord sac, or scanner sweep and you can see what the opponent has. In poker you get no glances at the opponents cards. I don't buy your argument at all.
I dont get a glance on my opponent hands, but I do however have pokertracker running and I do have the ability to watch his previous hands played so I can put him on a number of hands based of his actions. I might not know his hand, but I can certainly put him on 99-QQ etc. and base my decision of that. "scouting" is everything in poker. Unless you are multitable grinding lower levels with a tight aggro style you need to adapt to the individual player.
|
Is starcraft more like windsurfing or a glass of milk?
|
The best SC2 players find ways to get the information they need to make the game more like chess than poker.
The ones who are playing the game like poker will eventually lose to the players with the clever scouting tactics.
|
Day9 said it best in SOTG:
If SC2 were like poker, no matter how well you played, you could still get run down by 50 ultralisks on the river. To be honest, all chess is a TBS (kinda RTS, but TBS at its core). Poker is a RPG. You will see similarities between SC2 and each of these games, but it's still just a embellished chess match. Everyone has the same opportunity at the start of the game (1 base, 6 probes/drones/SCVs, and 50 minerals), and where they go from there is their business. Now, there's no spawning units in chess OR poker, but any "information" strategy you see in poker, you will undoubtedly see in chess.
All RTS stem from the idea of controlling units and using the equality at the start of the game to have a better economy, better army, and eventually, better win/loss ratio. 
|
Starcraft is Chess where you can only see the opponent's moves every 3-4 turns.
|
definitely more like poker. theres luck involved in both games. chess is 100% strategy.
|
While I do think that starcraft has a slight element of luck in it, I'd have to say it is more like chess. You have to be able to think two steps in advance, and adapt to the situation.
|
I say both simply because the outcome of the game can be decided purely on a spawning location. So I think that luck is a factor and always will be.
|
It's like chess with imperfect or missing information. Played perfectly, with good scouting from both players it plays out like chess, so I can see how you're make that comparison.
Not really sure how you'd think it's like poker though, unless you think both games are about luck (which they aren't) and going "all-in". Mechanically it might be like poker (timings) but strategically it's closer to chess.
|
poker. too much luck in sc2.
chess is a game of pure skill and thought. both of which are minimalized in sc2 compared to chess
Nexus Wars is much more comparable to chess than sc2 ladder
|
chess is sorta like poker at a very high level
|
On December 23 2010 01:03 synchrosonik wrote:
Is starcraft more like windsurfing or a glass of milk?
This
|
As someone who grew up playing FPS games, and only recently switched over to SC2, I am truly amazed at the level of strategy and hand-eye coordination the game requires. Anytime I have to describe the game to someone who doesn't play it I say "It's like chess, played with both hands and feet, and it's not turn based anymore. That's about a fraction of the speed and strategy in Starcraft."
|
On December 23 2010 01:03 synchrosonik wrote:
Is starcraft more like windsurfing or a glass of milk?
Really, its windsurfing while drinking a glass of milk.
|
In terms of the skill set required, it's obviously poker. Look at how many bw players that also have been successful at poker.
|
Starcraft is like Warcraft 3... in ssspppaaacceee!!!
|
People often lose in chess because they fail to spot something. Games can also be determined by who has memorized openings most extensively, on which Bobby Fischer remarked, "Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It's a terrible game now. Very uncreative." Which calls to mind the extreme advantage sheer muscle-memory gives a practiced player in BW and to a lesser degree in SC2. Maybe, then, if SC2 is moving away from being chess-like, that's a good thing. I would like to see SC2 reward creativity, psychological games, and logic; as much as it does muscle memory.
|
It's like Poker.
Chess is a game of perfect information. All the moves and countermoves are visible and revealed to both players at 100% of the time.
Poker however is not. There is hidden information between players. You cannot be certain of what the other person has, and how he is going to play his cards.
The same thing is in Starcraft. You have hidden information. You can never be certain about what your opponent is going to do or how the game will play out.
|
Chess is a perfect information game. Poker is a game of hidden information.
Starcraft is more like Poker than Chess. How many famous professional Starcraft players go on to Chess careers, and how many go on to Poker careers?
|
It might be more like poker. you can draw clues on what the opponent has and what he's going to play. There's a random element in poker also that can be related to SC2 because sometimes players can make mistakes.
for example, between 2 armies, one might have a 60% to win. this is dependent on how well the players micro their units and where the battle is fought. this is the same thing in poker
|
On December 23 2010 04:13 out4blood wrote:
Chess is a perfect information game. Poker is a game of hidden information.
Starcraft is more like Poker than Chess. How many famous professional Starcraft players go on to Chess careers, and how many go on to Poker careers?
There's a lot more money in poker, not necessarily because they are similar, so that's probably not an accurate assumption.
Seems to me the only factor a lot of people are considering is how much information you have. So how much do you scout?
|
Starcraft is definitely more like Poker than Chess, but it's only about 10% like poker. Both are games of incomplete information and both have elements of risk/reward plays, but other than that the two are not very much alike at all.
Both are games of mental dexterity, however there is much more mental work in Poker then there is in starcraft (much more math). Starcraft requires you to make many quick, simple decisions while poker's decisions are much more complex and often as frequent. If you are multi-tabling poker then it's not even close that poker is more complex.
Success in poker is measured differently than it is in Starcraft. A sucessful starcraft player is usually measured by the level of opponents that he plays and the level he plays at; meaning the higher skilled more successful players are always playing eachother. In poker that is not necessary true. You can be a winning poker player by playing low-limits, managing your risk, and capitalizing on weaker opponents and be successful by pure volume. There are respected poker plaers who never come close to the stakes played on TV or in the high limit rooms in Las Vegas. Counter to this, a Gold level player is not going to be financially successful in Starcraft, nor will he be seen in the community as successful for being "#1 Gold SC2 player on the NA server."
There are numerous reasons I could get into about the differences, but the reason I think that ElkY and Rekrul are successful at poker is the same reason a lot of Msgic: The Gathering kids were very successful in poker in the past 7-8 years: Both activities are inheriently competitive, both require strong mental dexterity and physical dexterity (try 12 tabling for 10-12 hours a day, it'd be similar to 12 hour mass-laddering/practice sessions), both require a strong understanding of risk/reward, and both reward those who consistently make the better decisions.
|
It's a little bit of both.
I like to use the term "choker".
Mind you, I'm sure SC2 is going to change a lot when the two expansions are out, and things like all-in's being so strong will probably be fixed.
|
Australia8532 Posts
I think it is more like monopoly.. drive around in a little car wearing a top hat trying to get as much property as you can.. totally..
+ Show Spoiler +/sarcasm .. no likey thread
|
Its an economics simulator, you spend the first half of the game trying to implement your policies and then you spend the next half explaining and rationalizing why it did('nt) work.
|
On December 23 2010 08:14 bkrow wrote:I think it is more like monopoly.. drive around in a little car wearing a top hat trying to get as much property as you can.. totally.. + Show Spoiler +/sarcasm .. no likey thread
Actually I think its most like farmville than anything else.
|
Yeah, SC2 is by far more poker than chess
|
On December 22 2010 18:10 sluggaslamoo wrote:
BW: Heavily influenced by making the most of your units: Chess
Factors:
Easier to defend against cheese and all-ins. Defense is more often than not more powerful than offense.
Worker scouting against Z, worker glitching, map-hack scans, spider-mines, lurkers, tanks. Like chess, you have a lot more information to work with. It then comes down to what you want to do with your units. Going one gate reaver, and losing your shuttle to a turret is the equivalent of losing your queen in the first few moves.
Unit micro can change outcome of the whole game, reavers, dragoons vs tank/mines, wraiths, mutalisk, scourge cloning.
Macro can make up for wrong unit compositions. Hard counters also don't counter as hard.
SC2: Heavily influenced by making the most of limited information: Poker
Factors:
Offense is more often than not more powerful than defense.
Much easier to hide information due to Z being able to kill worker scouts with slow-lings, scans cost money, observers are more expensive and contends with building other necessary units like colossi/immortal.
mules/queens/chrono makes all-ins more powerful.
Early very powerful hard-counters means build-order losses occur much more frequently, couple this with very limited information, many games can feel like a coin-flip.
Hit the nail right on the head. But you can prevent most build-order coinflips by playing more safe. Basically, if you go a Protoss, anything that doesn't involve fast obs or hallucination is subject to coinflip-age. Zerg and Terran have no excuse for being surprised. Despite this you see some very high level players deciding to go blind on their build orders. Very painful to watch NSPGenius go fast blink stalkers and get trumped by fast cloaked banshees.
|
Starcraft is like Starcraft
|
Chess, poker, but mostly heads or tails.
|
i want to say chess, but there's no 'execution' part to chess, you move the piece and you can't mess that up. you can be blind and play chess, there is no physical demand to the game.
i also want to say poker, but the biggest difference imo is that poker gives you hands, and in starcraft and chess, you make your own hand.
starcraft is easier compared to chess because not everyone understands poker.
|
On December 22 2010 19:46 ejozl wrote:
The actual game is chess, but the mental game is poker.
Lets meet in the middle and say it's like Stratego : P
I was about to say the same damn thing!
|
Why does it matter which it's more like?
|
I play poker, and chess, and of course also SC2, imo, the similarities between the games are very few and there is really no reason to compare them. Chess is a brutal mathematical game whose strategy and tactics are not going to apply to SC2.
In poker, there is the psychological factor, the way you want to put pressure on your opponent is key in both game, it is also important to have a fair idea what your opponent does and while you want to hide your own strategy can be recognized from both games. But it is still only loose parallels, to be a good poker player does not make you a capable SC2 players, or vice versa.
|
I agree that SC1 is more like chess than SC2...
SC2 doesn't let you choose between macro/micro, macro is always more important. In chess, every unit counts, in poker, you aren't concerned about individual hands, only your budget.
SC2 has no concept of tempo, it is almost impossible to keep it, and if you have it, it is because you have a material advantage. SC1 was very heavy on keeping tempo, like chess. Tempo is easily translated into positional advantage which is absent from SC2.
SC2 depends a lot on scouting, and if you can't scout, you're always have a higher win % if you guess what he could be doing instead of accounting for all possibilities. That's more like poker.
SC2 has a lot more hard counters (hands beat other hands, instead of like in chess, where you have the same pieces but the position matters much more).
and the most important:
In chess, you can pretty much open whatever piece you want, but in SC2 and Poker, there is always a 'right' move to make.
In pretty much every case I think SC would be better more like chess than poker.
|
On December 23 2010 02:01 Zeroes wrote:
chess is sorta like poker at a very high level
Some truth in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
