On November 12 2011 04:47 wankey wrote: I'm not talking about the pathfinding, or the graphics, or the sound effects (of which BW is vastly superior).
What the F... First the graphics are obviously a lot worse. The sound effects were good for their time, but they are still worse just cuz you personally feel nastalgic about them doesn't mean their quality is higher and pathfinding sucks just cuz it lead to incidental and unintentional micro (by blizzard) doesn't mean it's good.
I am pretty sure standard play setting on fastest was an unintended development, one that for some time Blizzard thought was a bad thing. Remember, the original ladder was not on Fastest for a long time. It feels right now, simply because we're used to watching it that way.
Besides that, the other points feels much more valid. Variety in SC2 seems to be of a smaller range than BW.
I think the proof is in the pudding here in the U.S. More people watch and play SC 2 and it's more popular, more money involved. Blizzard did something right IMO.
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
so do i, that blue fire was awesome, but anyway what i feel going from sc:bw to sc2 is the difference in micro and the nature of micro, it feels like its so much less unit control and more spells
for instance: in bw there were tons of awesome spells but they wouldn't necessarily be used every game there were also units that had a ridiculously high reward per cost with proper micro (namely reaver, mutalisk, vulture) in sc2 there are a ton of awesome spells, but they're used seemingly every game micro seems to be way more based on spells than it is on unit control, which, while i dislike i do understand it to be different games
I think you're right about some of these, but they're all really minor issues compared to unit clumping. Late game army battles were so much more interesting and dynamic in BW =(
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Disagree, so many of these are in the game o.o for example, all units have "backswing' aka attack animation in SC2. If no unit had backswing, they would all attack instantly; even the marine doesn't attack instantly, though its attack comes out very fast.
Units also have different turning rates in SC2.
Again, units in SC2 have to turn and face before shooting.
The last one is just guessing, it's a 2D game meaning they can't make so many frames per animation or else it would take forever. Of course it would look better on faster; it makes animations look smoother. I think the animations for SC2 on fastest are fine.
On November 12 2011 05:08 tnud wrote: NO UNIT IN SC2 DIES IN A PILE OF BLUE GOO. + Show Spoiler +
Seriously, this is my main problem with sc2.
Valid points and interesting read
Immortals have blue goo, just it's not jelly-like and doesn't show up on low graphics.
I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
You're wrong on the turn rate. I purposely checked on the turn rates, the siege tank, hellion, thor, and all the bioball units have the same turn rate. ie, really fast and mostly instant.
I'm just saying that in SC1, the turn rate for vehicles and the likes were distinct enough that you could notice them. Vultures turned SUPER fast, while siege tanks took a bit. If you moved a ball of siege tanks + marines, the siege tanks would immediately fall behind due to slow turn rate
It's true that there are a lot of units in SC2 with very little pre-attack delay, which he's calling backswing. You can't cancel pre-attack animation with a move command and still get the attack to happen, so units like marines and hydras are way better at stutter stepping than stalkers or roaches, especially when retreating.
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
so do i, that blue fire was awesome, but anyway what i feel going from sc:bw to sc2 is the difference in micro and the nature of micro, it feels like its so much less unit control and more spells
for instance: in bw there were tons of awesome spells but they wouldn't necessarily be used every game there were also units that had a ridiculously high reward per cost with proper micro (namely reaver, mutalisk, vulture) in sc2 there are a ton of awesome spells, but they're used seemingly every game micro seems to be way more based on spells than it is on unit control, which, while i dislike i do understand it to be different games
I agree, but isn't it more like this in BW it was about keeping your units together now it's all about splitting your army up. I mean marine splits against banelings is an art and you can't deny that. It's the same with brood war just that you have to keep your army together
On November 12 2011 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree with OP.
SC2 is different from BW.
...Yeah.
Wait, did you say that BW's graphics are better than SC2's? I hope not.
Anyways, they're different games -.-' Leave it at that please
Could not agree more, but either way a very interesting comparison and a nice read. But to be fair to the OP i don't think he is saying one is better then another i think they are just trying to point out some of the subtle tweaks or fearers that BW had and is speculating about the effect it had on game play.
Animations in BW were made for Fastest, in SC2, they were made for nomal I think this is more about watchability than anything. Brood war feels like all the animations were made for Fastest (since it feels stuttery on faster or normal) so it feels "normal speed" while SC2 animations were all made for normal. I find this a bit troubling for a sports game that's supposed to be watchable. While the death of an overlord or an ultralisk feels disgusting in SC2, they happen a bit *too* fast for anyone to notice. Anyone else feel this way? I love watching MLG and GSL like anyone else but I can't help but have that feeling that the fleeting moments happen way too fast, I barely even get a chance to get excited before it's all over.
I'm sorry, where did you get this information from? I must have missed it...
(hint: I'm asking because I'm pretty sure OP made this up)
I haven't ever thought about it in terms of that but I agree with the OP. If you watch a BW game it feels like fastest is the game speed that the animators used as the benchmark in order to make everything look natural. SC2 on fastest makes the animations seem sorta choppy at times, like it's fast forwarded. So yes agree with OP.
On November 12 2011 04:47 wankey wrote: I'm not talking about the pathfinding, or the graphics, or the sound effects (of which BW is vastly superior).
What the F... First the graphics are obviously a lot worse. The sound effects were good for their time, but they are still worse just cuz you personally feel nastalgic about them doesn't mean their quality is higher and pathfinding sucks just cuz it lead to incidental and unintentional micro (by blizzard) doesn't mean it's good.
Please read that as sound effects are vastly superior and use some common sense.
A few units in BW could fire while facing away from enemy units. Carriers, of course, with proper micro could attack while on the move, even retreating. Reavers sometimes would release their scarabs at an enemy unit without having to turn. Even valkyries, which are notorious for being cumbersome to control as opposed to entirely fluid like the other BW air units, could fire backwards with the right technique:
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
so do i, that blue fire was awesome, but anyway what i feel going from sc:bw to sc2 is the difference in micro and the nature of micro, it feels like its so much less unit control and more spells
for instance: in bw there were tons of awesome spells but they wouldn't necessarily be used every game there were also units that had a ridiculously high reward per cost with proper micro (namely reaver, mutalisk, vulture) in sc2 there are a ton of awesome spells, but they're used seemingly every game micro seems to be way more based on spells than it is on unit control, which, while i dislike i do understand it to be different games
I agree, but isn't it more like this in BW it was about keeping your units together now it's all about splitting your army up. I mean marine splits against banelings is an art and you can't deny that. It's the same with brood war just that you have to keep your army together
yea, i forgot about TvZ marine micro (P player) that definitely takes a good deal of skill/cloning/practice however as a P player no micro really jumps out at me that i can practice til its so amazing that people are wow'ed
there is blink stalker micro but that is just basic figuring out which one is going to die before it gets shot and blinking it back as its dying
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
so do i, that blue fire was awesome, but anyway what i feel going from sc:bw to sc2 is the difference in micro and the nature of micro, it feels like its so much less unit control and more spells
for instance: in bw there were tons of awesome spells but they wouldn't necessarily be used every game there were also units that had a ridiculously high reward per cost with proper micro (namely reaver, mutalisk, vulture) in sc2 there are a ton of awesome spells, but they're used seemingly every game micro seems to be way more based on spells than it is on unit control, which, while i dislike i do understand it to be different games
I agree, but isn't it more like this in BW it was about keeping your units together now it's all about splitting your army up. I mean marine splits against banelings is an art and you can't deny that. It's the same with brood war just that you have to keep your army together
yea, i forgot about TvZ marine micro (P player) that definitely takes a good deal of skill/cloning/practice however as a P player no micro really jumps out at me that i can practice til its so amazing that people are wow'ed
there is blink stalker micro but that is just basic figuring out which one is going to die before it gets shot and blinking it back as its dying
On November 12 2011 05:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I wish they still had "burning" Pylons but at least they have a little blue goo yes haha xD
so do i, that blue fire was awesome, but anyway what i feel going from sc:bw to sc2 is the difference in micro and the nature of micro, it feels like its so much less unit control and more spells
for instance: in bw there were tons of awesome spells but they wouldn't necessarily be used every game there were also units that had a ridiculously high reward per cost with proper micro (namely reaver, mutalisk, vulture) in sc2 there are a ton of awesome spells, but they're used seemingly every game micro seems to be way more based on spells than it is on unit control, which, while i dislike i do understand it to be different games
I agree, but isn't it more like this in BW it was about keeping your units together now it's all about splitting your army up. I mean marine splits against banelings is an art and you can't deny that. It's the same with brood war just that you have to keep your army together
yea, i forgot about TvZ marine micro (P player) that definitely takes a good deal of skill/cloning/practice however as a P player no micro really jumps out at me that i can practice til its so amazing that people are wow'ed
there is blink stalker micro but that is just basic figuring out which one is going to die before it gets shot and blinking it back as its dying
Storms and perfect forcefields, now go practice
those are spells rather than unit control, also ive already practiced til near perfect ff T_T
On November 12 2011 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree with OP.
SC2 is different from BW.
...Yeah.
Wait, did you say that BW's graphics are better than SC2's? I hope not.
Anyways, they're different games -.-' Leave it at that please
Could not agree more, but either way a very interesting comparison and a nice read. But to be fair to the OP i don't think he is saying one is better then another i think they are just trying to point out some of the subtle tweaks or fearers that BW had and is speculating about the effect it had on game play.
To be honest, I think the title says it all (along with the fact that he often points out that he thinks certain parts of BW were explicitly better than SC2). And regardless of whether or not I agree with him (I played both games and love them both dearly), it's generally frowned upon to post threads like this. We shouldn't be having "BW vs. SC2: I think X is better than Y because..." threads, because they're not supposed to one-up the other.
Did you also notice that the main character of GTA IV is different from the one in VC? The thing about SC2 having no backswing time is just wrong... And facing your enemies to shoot at them, is there any unit in SC2 that can shoot/attack behind them?