|
On June 30 2015 22:31 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 21:57 Espers wrote:
lol professional sc2 caster says his game is better than its predecessor, shocker! Precisely. Of course Shell employees deny that climate change is real, they have an agenda. Now imagine how fervently they'd attack climate change if Shell were on the brink of bankruptcy. There'd be Shell to pay.
He didn't say it's a better game.
You guys need to re-read what he said and stop trolling.
|
On June 30 2015 22:31 althaz wrote:I totally agree with what Artosis is saying...but I think Broodwar is the superior game regardless. In SC2, making a few poor decisions can absolutely cost you the game. In Broodwar, because of the increased importance of tactics (including but not limited to micro) and (somewhat) decreased importance of strategy poor decisions can more easily be recovered from. IMO the extra strategic intensity of SC2 is what makes it the weaker game of the two. That said, SC2 is still my 2nd favourite game of all time  .
is tac tic toe more "strategic" than chess because 1 bad decision = gg? this argument doesn't make any sense to me. because it's more volatile does not mean it's more strategic.
|
I'm skeptical of that claim, simply because how does one objectively quantify something like "strategic depth"? I have no idea how to even begin to think of that in an actually measurable way, so this thread basically boils down to peoples' general subjective opinions with no real capacity for resolution.
That being said, anyone who says BW doesn't have strategic depth needs to go watch the Flash vs. Jaedong MSL game where Flash successfully goliath timing pushed jaedong (goliaths in TvZ are a rare and fringe strat) because he correctly (a-priori) anticipated that Jaedong would make a transition from mutas into hydras (not a common strat in TvZ, either) on a particular map. That was some next level-gaming shit there, and would classify (in my subjective mind) as an example of BW having very deep strategic depth. Does it have more than SC2? That's tough to say, but in both games both players have to make constant complex strategic decisions based on their perceptions of the opponent's strategy.
Both have a large amount of strategic depth, I think trying to compare "which one has more" is a bit silly, and ultimately unresolvable in any kind of meaningful way.
|
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though.
I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other.
strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically.
In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
|
On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
|
BW is all about mechanics until the pro level. SC2 is all about mechanics until the high diamond or master level. So I would argue SC2 is therefore strategic for a greater percentage of its players.
BW is a chore to play.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49505 Posts
On June 30 2015 23:26 Doodsmack wrote:
BW is a chore to play.
lol its fun even when you lose.
if you take this discussion seriously, we all lose and waxangel wins.....Thats a bad outcome people.
|
On June 30 2015 23:06 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games. Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor. As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other.
If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. (i think micro and multitasking is part of mechanics)
If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore.
It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically.
It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well.
Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know.
Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make.
I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings.
He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
|
On June 30 2015 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:06 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games. Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor. As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff. See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
Yeah but there are a few things here...
1) Maru is the best Terran in the world.
2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on.
3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play.
And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
|
I completely agree with Artosis. SC2 is more about making correct decisions based off the information you're able to gain from scouting, while BW is more about having insane mechanics and making more units than your opponent. Obviously both games require good mechanics and strategy though.
|
Of the dozens and dozens of RTS games made since 1995 ...
SC2 is one of the best... probably top 6
the Brood War loyalists are just going to have to inhale deeply and become one with that fact.
|
|
|
On June 30 2015 23:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Of the dozens and dozens of RTS games made since 1995 ...
SC2 is one of the best... probably top 6
the Brood War loyalists are just going to have to inhale deeply and become one with that fact.
I'm inhaling indifferently as to what RTS game is 2nd and below.
On June 30 2015 22:45 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:31 SixStrings wrote:On June 30 2015 21:57 Espers wrote:
lol professional sc2 caster says his game is better than its predecessor, shocker! Precisely. Of course Shell employees deny that climate change is real, they have an agenda. Now imagine how fervently they'd attack climate change if Shell were on the brink of bankruptcy. There'd be Shell to pay. He didn't say it's a better game. You guys need to re-read what he said and stop trolling.
He said SC2 is more strategic and hence BW is more shallow. We do not agree that BW is akin to Typing Maniac when compared to SC2. It only appears so because of the demonstrated Musicus effect below.
On June 30 2015 23:26 Doodsmack wrote:
BW is all about mechanics until the pro level. SC2 is all about mechanics until the high diamond or master level. So I would argue SC2 is therefore strategic for a greater percentage of its players.
BW is a chore to play.
Yes, but that's due to the Musicus effect, first demonstrated by Dr Musicus from Germany:
On June 30 2015 16:15 Musicus wrote:So I had to bust out the paint skills here for one more point: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oIzhv2o.png) I think in sc2 strategy is more impactful than in BW because the impact of perfect execution is lower. But that does not mean sc2 is more strategic, it just seems this way since execution is less important. Well I think the graph explains what I mean  .
I'm a noob and BW doesn't feel like a chore but FUN, like a rollercoaster
|
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
|
Japan11285 Posts
On June 30 2015 14:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
should have posted this in sc:bw general so the butthurt would truly flow.
Hahaha this thread. And still no Rekrul hehe.
A bit more on-topic: BW is indeed about making units. But I'd actually counter-argue that since pros make units at the same rate, the difference of a win or loss is about the strategic and tactical decisions made by the players so that they end up either in a position where they have more units or can produce more units, faster than their opponent.
Also, Monty Hall and Sin 815.
|
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
|
On June 30 2015 23:50 SC2Towelie wrote:
I completely agree with Artosis. SC2 is more about making correct decisions based off the information you're able to gain from scouting, while BW is more about having insane mechanics and making more units than your opponent. Obviously both games require good mechanics and strategy though.
So how do you explain that in BW scouting is very important too? Maybe scouting to be able to build MOAAAARR units?
BTW unit caps are reached much faster in sc2... so what does that tell me about making MOOAAARR units?
|
Not enough graphs on the last two pages!
|
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are completely off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
And it's not an illusion of balance. There's statistical evidence.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
|
On June 30 2015 22:48 BallinWitStalin wrote:
I'm skeptical of that claim, simply because how does one objectively quantify something like "strategic depth"?
its hard to give a numerical measure to strategic depth.
but, i bet some experts in AI, math, and game theory have developed a measurement system of some kind.
but the layman can compare 2 games and assess strategic depth.
examples:
chess has more strategic depth than checkers
texas hold'em has more strategic depth than 5 card stud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
