|
Tactics and strategy are not the same thing.
Positioning, multi prong attacks and harassment are all tactics. Army composition, Builds, counter builds and timings are all strategy. There are strategical elements in tactics, but no tactics in strategical choices.
Broodwar had the simmilar tactics but it was harder to execute, on top of harder purely mechanical requirements.
Its true, since SC2 has easier mechanics, tactical execution and control, the player must focus more on strategy to get an advantage. On broodwar you could rely on the units and tactics you are good with, even if they are not the optimal choice strategically, thus making strategy less important in competition. However that doesn't mean it has less strategical depth.
Broodwar could be as strategic as SC2 even if strategy is less important relatively because it takes more skill in other areas. If its true or not im not sure but its barely debated on the thread.
But i do undestand that Artosis meant SC2 is more strategic in a competitive environment, and with that i absolutely agree.
edited:
Surely its not just matter of how hard or easy each game is on each area, its also about how punished or rewarded you are for each skill. But that just reinforce that SC2 is more strategic, since its so unforgiving on this matter, while BW punished harder and rewarded even more the micro.
|
People trying to make it sound the strategies in SC2 are a byproduct of bad game design. What a great thread, much value, so wow!
User was warned for memes in this post
|
On July 12 2015 00:27 Big J wrote:
People trying to make it sound the strategies in SC2 are a byproduct of bad game design. What a great thread, much value, so wow!
I find it quite funny that you out of all say that tbh. AFAIK you really, really dislike "coinflipping", which is exactly what it is cause strategy might be more important in relation to mechanics.
If you make a game where strategy is that important and you have imperfect information this is bound to happen.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2015 17:08 MidnightZL wrote:
People still talking about BW!? amazing... the gfx kills me before i even start to play.. and same as always in the comments: sc2 soo bad, bw soo good, always.the same jargong..
yep, doubt it'll change anytime soon. hehe maybe try to learn the game and give it a fair chance (gfx are fine to me, no need for things to be shiny) then let us know which one you enjoy more 
|
I kinda disagree a bit about taking out the mechanic elements of the game from strategy. This is because to execute certain strategies and tactics you need a good execution. A good plan need logistics and so on. This is part of the whole thing IMO. No matter what your strategy is, you need it to be properly executed. In war or any other aspect of life, no matter how brilliant is your plan, if you neglect or lack certain control elements, your plan will fail or not be proper.
In BW I would say it was harder to execute properly any given strategy or tactics. Also tactics were also emphasized as well as death balls were less explosive. In SC2 any given strategy were easier to do. I don't think both games have more or less strategy than each other in general. It was harder in BW and also you could improvise your own strategy with tactics tricks on the go. Strategic readjustments were more possible in BW. In SC2 if you botch or choose the wrong one, micro an emergency tactic may not be feasible to rearrange your strategy in the long term.
I think in the end it's also about maps. The map design will be the threshold of how many strategies can be played. SC2 took a bit longer to get it done right as being the newer game and also Blizzard lacking a bit in this aspect compared to BW competitive scene.
|
On July 12 2015 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2015 00:27 Big J wrote:
People trying to make it sound the strategies in SC2 are a byproduct of bad game design. What a great thread, much value, so wow! I find it quite funny that you out of all say that tbh. AFAIK you really, really dislike "coinflipping", which is exactly what it is cause strategy might be more important in relation to mechanics. If you make a game where strategy is that important and you have imperfect information this is bound to happen.
I disagree here, though I fully stand behind the notion that "more strategy" doesn't equal "good gameplay". But I believe well-implemented strategy just means that you have multiple options to solve the same problem. The outcome still depends on the interacting strategical choices made and there may be a "best" solution for each problem. But there may be other solutions that work too.
An example would be that I can choose between lurkers or banelings to fight a marinebased army. They may lead to different outcomes to the current situation but as long as either gets the job done (if well-played) it is a strategical choice that than in return imposes different problems to my opponent (and for which hopefully he has multiple solutions).
Of course, on the flipside having 15different allins that are somewhat viable also makes for more strategy, but that isn't the only thing creating more strategical choices.
And yes, I believe many SC2 matchups are strategically deeper than their broodwar counterparts in that regard. For example ZvZ and TvT are massive improvements strategically compared to broodwar. Maybe also in bad strategies (scouting-luck based ones) but also in the good ones, by in having multiple good responses to the problems your opponents imposes on you, rather than "oh my, he is playing mutas. I guess I have to play mutas" or "it's a terran, time to mass siege tanks and vultures".
|
I mean i agree with your general notion that good strategy should mean having multiple options for any given situation.
The problem i personally see is that if it's kinda more important what choice you make (how many units X,Y and Z do i have to make to counter his army?) in a game with imperfect information ( i hate when people bring up chess, it just makes no sense) you will gamble a lot more.
In a game where you have also mutiple options and the execution of said options is more important, i think this game would be better for the concept of imperfect information.
I am not even talking about BW/sc2 here, but adding more importance to strategy in a game where you cant even make 100% educated choices cause you lack information seems like a weird concept in itself tbh.
If that makes sense.
Maybe the factor of imperfect informations isn't big enough to really influence this dynamic though. Or the solution for players (taking educated risks) works well enough.
Your point about BW: I think army composition isn't really the only strategical factor we should investigate here though. It's only one aspect. I am not really that knowledgable about BW builds though, i just like to watch it from time to time :D
|
On July 12 2015 01:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I mean i agree with your general notion that good strategy should mean having multiple options for any given situation.
The problem i personally see is that if it's kinda more important what choice you make (how many units X,Y and Z do i have to make to counter his army?) in a game with imperfect information ( i hate when people bring up chess, it just makes no sense) you will gamble a lot more.
In a game where you have also mutiple options and the execution of said options is more important, i think this game would be better for the concept of imperfect information.
I am not even talking about BW/sc2 here, but adding more importance to strategy in a game where you cant even make 100% educated choices cause you lack information seems like a weird concept in itself tbh.
If that makes sense.
Maybe the factor of imperfect informations isn't big enough to really influence this dynamic though. Or the solution for players (taking educated risks) works well enough.
Eliminating imperfect information is part of the strategy and execution though. How much you are willing to gamble is often your own choice and scouting is rather cheap eventually, besides the early game. Once you get into those 2-3basish scenarios in SC2 whether you don't know something your opponent is doing is mainly your own fault. And I believe at a certain point in the game these "coinflips" become valueable parts of strategy, just not early when it's not reasonable to waste in-game resources on often times insufficient scouting.
It's only the early game where I really dislike the imperfect information, because there is often nothing you can do about it, or what you can do about it can be deterred without having to invest extra into hiding (you just get that sentry or stalker anyways, you may as well kill that overlord with it) or is insufficient (that scan will not reveal his base completely and I cannot really have more scouting tools right now without being weak to nearly everything that comes due to heavy scouting investments).
Your point about BW: I think army composition isn't really the only strategical factor we should investigate here though. It's only one aspect. I am not really that knowledgable about BW builds though, i just like to watch it from time to time :D
Same here and fully agree. Composition isn't everything when investigating strategy. I guess I should have specified that a bit more, especially since I don't really want to get deep into those bw vs sc2 arguments, when all I really care for is how to make sc2 better, without giving a damn about games I don't play.
|
On July 11 2015 17:08 MidnightZL wrote:
People still talking about BW!? amazing... the gfx kills me before i even start to play.. and same as always in the comments: sc2 soo bad, bw soo good, always.the same jargong..
This is the attitude that is ruining so many games being released today, for both console and PC. Our obsession with graphics and how pretty the packaging is how overtaken the focus of working on good gameplay. Too many games are designed with how pretty the packaging can be while completely forgoing the aspect of the game that draws someone to come back over and over again.
Sure there are a few exceptions here and there for this, but overall, this attitude is all that is wrong about many industries today (I'm thinking about movies that spend 100+ million dollars to make something that looks cool, but the storyline is such crap, you can't get into it: I'm looking at you Jupiter Ascending). We the consumers need to demand that mediocre games dressed in fancy tinsel will not fly anymore! And if you are part of the majority who won't touch a game simply by how it looks... i have no hope for you all. It sounds to me like the ignorant people who judge someone for looking different, or refusing to read a book simply based on what the cover looks like.
|
Artosis is a complete idiot more strategic my ass
User was warned for this post
|
I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote:
I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZS7Uy.jpg)
Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
|
I think BW still looks good. As Cyro says, 2d ages decently. That screenshot is cool, too. Those positions were so hard to crack as protoss because the units were big and clunky and they were hard and fun to micro. Terran didn't have too many units but they could dish out a lot of damage. It all made sense and it was elegant, and looked elegant too. Tank + high ground was a force to be reckoned with. And dropping units to break those reinforced positions in the mid game was no small matter, it was always an investment.
I miss BW so much ;(
|
On October 26 2015 09:46 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote:
I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well. 2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time. Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards.
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming.
|
On October 26 2015 10:04 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 09:46 Cyro wrote:On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote:
I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well. 2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time. Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff. You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards. Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming.
The graphics can easily be argued to be fine. There are games where the gameplay is great but the graphics are so unsightly that they're annoying to play. Some examples would be Goldeneye 007 (which maintains some charm somehow), Age of Empires, Deus Ex and the likes.
Yet there are other games that age just fine, like Super Mario World on SNES. Starcraft is one of those, IMO. It's not the prettiest but it's very utilitarian and clear. Very responsive, the animations don't feel jagged, no stuttering, no clipping, everything behaves as it should. I'd say there's nothing unsightly about SCBW.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode.
No, the only problem there is that you are upscaling 640x480 to your whole screen, don't do that!
Here, i got the link for those who don't know how to drag the image to view actual size. http://i.imgur.com/ZS7Uy.jpg
This is what the game looks like if you open it, do nothing else but use a hack to make the window bigger because now, 640x480 would be a small window on our screens. We played on much smaller and also some lower pixel density screens back then.
|
On October 26 2015 10:24 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 10:04 Cascade wrote:On October 26 2015 09:46 Cyro wrote:On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote:
I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well. 2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time. Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff. You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards. Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming. The graphics can easily be argued to be fine. There are games where the gameplay is great but the graphics are so unsightly that they're annoying to play. Some examples would be Goldeneye 007 (which maintains some charm somehow), Age of Empires, Deus Ex and the likes. Yet there are other games that age just fine, like Super Mario World on SNES. Starcraft is one of those, IMO. It's not the prettiest but it's very utilitarian and clear. Very responsive, the animations don't feel jagged, no stuttering, no clipping, everything behaves as it should. I'd say there's nothing unsightly about SCBW.
Yeah, sc1 is doing fine compared to other old games, so I am fine with saying that it aged well. I think I meant that if you put sc1 and sc2 next to each other, sc2 looks a lot better. Which is entirely expected of course, but still something to take into account when you compare the two.
edit: I also meant that cyros image isn't representative of what you have on your screen when playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
