EPTA new blog post by @BrownBear_47 on Twitter
Interesting read. Please share.
StarCraft II and Brood War Belong to Different Genres
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HyralGambit
2439 Posts
A new blog post by @BrownBear_47 on Twitter Interesting read. Please share. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
| ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
Just the other day I after playing a SC2 game I was thinking of how much I miss just managing my bases/macro everywhere and being occupied with that almost entirely, and finding it very fun to keep busy with. When I played SC:BW I would focus almost entirely on macro and getting my economy near flawless as possible, and then as a result of that I could just awkwardly control my units into a win, and it was very satisfying/fun to me. The actual fighting/micro was a lot less appealing to me than the base management/macro aspects, and even in Sc2, I've felt that way. Just that sc2 offered a lot less in that department than sc;bw did. There's creep spread and injects, but after years it became so boring, BW had so much more to offer in that regard, and even though most tasks completly mundane and largely thanks to outdated interface, it never got boring for some reason. BW also did offer a lot in micro, say with mutalisks or some smaller group of units, but it was a lot different than the type of mass armies control in SC2. Looking back now, I think I've had so much more fun with BW than SC2, and I think I've always felt that way since switching to Sc2, even throughout being a pro and all that, there was always part of me that felt it just wasn't that fun. Maybe it was just nostalgia.. I don't know. That said, when I go back to BW now I find it almost impossible to deal with the unit pathing, lol. Despite having played it for so long before and never having a problem with it then.  | ||
|
thezanursic
5479 Posts
Essentially what I'm trying to say is that SC2 is a good game, but it isn't good for the exact same reasons that made BW good, meaning that it has a different appeal. | ||
|
kAra
Germany1374 Posts
+ello jos | ||
|
Strelok
Ukraine320 Posts
| ||
|
hitthat
Poland2267 Posts
It's not. | ||
|
SCHWARZENEGGER
206 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
Had we had something like that then zerg players could actually get by on more bases with the same amount of workers as their opponents and there could be so much more depth to build orders... That and the high supply costs of everything (no 1 supply unit for zerg) really do it for me  . Honestly, Blizzard could just give the game a higher supply cap and that would keep me happy for a few more years... | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
i've played a lot of sc2, watched a lot of BW. i can always call games in sc2 with decent accuracy, say which strategy is good against which because it's fairly cut and dry as to what beats what. i have learned not to call BW games too early except in zvz and pvp. so often you can win a battle but lose the war. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
In my opinion Strategy is much more important in BW than it is in SC2 because there is more options in BW with more impact. You can not choose to go for bio or mech or bio-mech or some air-ground hybrid in pro level SC2 but you could in BW. These different unit compositions require different economies and expansion patterns and thus a completely different strategy for the entire game. Not saying it doesnt exist in SC2 at all but I dont see it nearly as much as in BW. | ||
|
DrunkenSCV
76 Posts
| ||
|
TwiggyWan
France329 Posts
On December 30 2016 20:55 Liquid`Ret wrote: Really nice post, been having some of these thoughts myself lately as well. Just the other day I after playing a SC2 game I was thinking of how much I miss just managing my bases/macro everywhere and being occupied with that almost entirely, and finding it very fun to keep busy with. When I played SC:BW I would focus almost entirely on macro and getting my economy near flawless as possible, and then as a result of that I could just awkwardly control my units into a win, and it was very satisfying/fun to me. The actual fighting/micro was a lot less appealing to me than the base management/macro aspects, and even in Sc2, I've felt that way. Just that sc2 offered a lot less in that department than sc;bw did. There's creep spread and injects, but after years it became so boring, BW had so much more to offer in that regard, and even though most tasks completly mundane and largely thanks to outdated interface, it never got boring for some reason. BW also did offer a lot in micro, say with mutalisks or some smaller group of units, but it was a lot different than the type of mass armies control in SC2. Looking back now, I think I've had so much more fun with BW than SC2, and I think I've always felt that way since switching to Sc2, even throughout being a pro and all that, there was always part of me that felt it just wasn't that fun. Maybe it was just nostalgia.. I don't know. That said, when I go back to BW now I find it almost impossible to deal with the unit pathing, lol. Despite having played it for so long before and never having a problem with it then. Did you play total annihilation or supreme commander forged alliance? If you like base management and macro you could like it. Don't forget guys that BW was an accident, so much bugged stuff is in the game because the devs did not have time to fix their shit, and now people praise the bugs and spit on sc2 mechanics implemented as the programmers wanted it back to BW lol | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15958 Posts
On December 30 2016 21:59 shadymmj wrote: one thing where i disagree with the article is the claim that sc2 has more strategy. i've played a lot of sc2, watched a lot of BW. i can always call games in sc2 with decent accuracy, say which strategy is good against which because it's fairly cut and dry as to what beats what. i have learned not to call BW games too early except in zvz and pvp. so often you can win a battle but lose the war. I think what the article means isn't that sc2 offers more strategy but that strategy is more important and decides more games. in BW a lot of games just get decided by mechanics, there's a lot of strategic decisions you can make but I feel it doesn't make the difference between win and loss as often as in sc2. In sc2 when I analyze a replay of me or a pro-level game it's most of the time a few errors in decision-making that made the difference between win and loss. Of course it also happens that you lose just because your opponent has better mechanics but I feel it's not as often as in BW. | ||
|
Freezard
Sweden1011 Posts
| ||
Ziggy
South Korea2105 Posts
| ||
|
outscar
2832 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 30 2016 23:16 ZiggyPG wrote: The ease with which micro and macro can be executed in SC2 would make it difficult for future games (e.g. SC3, bound to happen sometime in the future) to switch back to the previous model used in SC1. Though it would change the gameplay drastically, I find it hard to believe rudimentary solutions such as limiting the number of units in a control group or removing multi selection of buildings would appeal to a modern gamer. And despite the competitive aspects of such solutions one must not forget a professional scene has no right to exist without a casual playerbase. I dont think intentionally dumbing down the interface is a good way to go. SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc) But there are many things they could change. The soft-cap on bases mentioned in the article (any many articles before) can easily be improved in various ways, just look at the different SC2 mods that are already out there. The pathfinding can be changed to favor more open formations instead of those tight circles with all units huddling together. A bigger highground advantage and more area-of-effect spells with long durations would make the terrain and movement more important during engagements. There are probably a dozen other ideas that could be tried to improve the game but blizzard isnt willing to do it. Maybe they are scared, maybe they already gave up, maybe its pride or maybe they actually like the game the way it is, but I refuse to believe the game could not have been much better without making the interface intentionally horrible. | ||
| ||
