BW isn't Chess. Read Ret's post about superior mechanics being able to beat other players. The APM in the two games are very different and BW is EXHAUSTING as it's a click fest.
So many people talking as if they know both games. Even if they played BW it probably wasn't for over a decade.
BW isn't Chess. Read Ret's post about superior mechanics being able to beat other players. The APM in the two games are very different and BW is EXHAUSTING as it's a click fest.
So many people talking as if they know both games. Even if they played BW it probably wasn't for over a decade.
On January 05 2017 15:14 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like war between fans of BW and sc2 is like old war Atari fans vs Commodore 64 fans. But the old war at least had classXD
But seriously. I know fron where it comes from. BW fans are mostly older guys who played this game when it was the greatest. They had no time or passion to transition into sc2 and that's why they try to diminish sc2 saying that it's worse than it's predecessor.That makes them "pros" and people with better taste in their own eye.
In the other hand we have mostly younger playerbase which was late to fully experience phenomenonn that BW was. That's why they diminish BW which makes an excuse in their own eyes for not trying to experience it at all.
What i mean is that both games are very good and different in many ways. And as such- they bring different experience. Overall the only thing that matters is the player's taste.
I played both-BW in it's prime and sc2. I enjoy both still and i wish both parties bury the hatchet :-)
This has nothing to do with being older or younger. I will speak for myself. I played for both for a very long time to understand they are very different. The whole idea that they belong to different genres is silly. This isn't about diminishing one game to the next. This is about understanding what makes Brood War, Brood War and SC2, SC2. Other than the lore and units in name.. these two games are nothing alike.
As for skill ceilings. There are no skill ceilings per say. People/players have their own limitations in terms of what they're capable of and you have consider the talent pool as well. It is what it is. Accept it for what it is.
On January 06 2017 08:43 sabas123 wrote: I don't know how you can come to a conclusion about the difficulty of a 1v1 game purely by the outcome.
It's the same argument as all arguments with Elo-derived ranking systems using what happens inside a game rather than merely the outcome.
ELO is a system to determine the skill of players compared to each other inside a game, it does not indicate the difficulty of game. ELO has nothing to do with that.
If a game is infinitely hard so everyone is equally terrible at it, any result will be a 50/50 coin flip, regardless of talent and practice. I hope you realize a game just being hard isn't an end in itself. I don't know if you were here debating it 10 years ago. I refer you to the Nony quote from 2008 or so, about macro skill in Starcraft and game longevity.
On what do you base this on? The closest thing we have to an "infinitely hard" game would be something like BW or Go, and your statement doesn't hold up for a second there.
Game states? If you are going to compare game states in RTS vs game states in Moba, you really think it would lead anywhere? There are so many, this doesn't even work for chess. I can kind of see how you can estimate how many decisions a player has to make. You can maybe approximate it. And that would be fixed in time for certain game phases, not be an exponentially growing three of states.
Game state is important. It is an important part to evaluate the success of a move, for instance: You have choice to castle, or to move the queen to any position. The success of any of those move depends heavily on the current game state (what pieces are on the board and where). I'm not saying I know how properly compare state between games, but it certainly is a big factor.
On January 06 2017 08:43 sabas123 wrote: I don't know how you can come to a conclusion about the difficulty of a 1v1 game purely by the outcome.
It's the same argument as all arguments with Elo-derived ranking systems using what happens inside a game rather than merely the outcome.
ELO is a system to determine the skill of players compared to each other inside a game, it does not indicate the difficulty of game. ELO has nothing to do with that.
Elo also shows skill gap between two players. I don't know what you mean with 'inside a game'. Also, the part you quote isn't about any of what you seem to want to talk about.
If a game is infinitely hard so everyone is equally terrible at it, any result will be a 50/50 coin flip, regardless of talent and practice. I hope you realize a game just being hard isn't an end in itself. I don't know if you were here debating it 10 years ago. I refer you to the Nony quote from 2008 or so, about macro skill in Starcraft and game longevity.
On what do you base this on? The closest thing we have to an "infinitely hard" game would be something like BW or Go, and your statement doesn't hold up for a second there.
Game states? If you are going to compare game states in RTS vs game states in Moba, you really think it would lead anywhere? There are so many, this doesn't even work for chess. I can kind of see how you can estimate how many decisions a player has to make. You can maybe approximate it. And that would be fixed in time for certain game phases, not be an exponentially growing three of states.
Game state is important. It is an important part to evaluate the success of a move, for instance: You have choice to castle, or to move the queen to any position. The success of any of those move depends heavily on the current game state (what pieces are on the board and where). I'm not saying I know how properly compare state between games, but it certainly is a big factor.
Creating an algorithm measuring how strong of a move something is is a lot easier than measuring how difficult it is. Originally, you were talking about measuring difficulty. While you made no clear statements, it seemed you wanted to go into the area of claiming that the more different states a game can progress into, the more states that need to be considered, the harder the decision is. But this is not correct. And it is obvious when we consider a human playing chess.
there's just not enough you can do with the anti-mobile units like PFs, nexus cannons, pylon cannons in later patches, carriers, battlecruisers, and the like. since we don't have shield batteries in competitive play i think Ret is dead on about the base management system, and I hope that in future installments of Starcraft we get back to base-management and try not to pick on niche Warcraft stuff.
The blog post really hits on some very very good points. I would like to see some new and fresh RTS and would love to test it out and see how it compares to sc2 for me. WC4 maybe? Kappa.
On January 06 2017 11:49 mappostorm wrote: Every time I watch a pro bw players first person view it looks to me like an artist creating something amazing every single time.
As someone who never really played competitive BW, this is so true!
On January 07 2017 03:28 bluQ wrote: The blog post really hits on some very very good points. I would like to see some new and fresh RTS and would love to test it out and see how it compares to sc2 for me. WC4 maybe? Kappa.
On January 06 2017 11:49 mappostorm wrote: Every time I watch a pro bw players first person view it looks to me like an artist creating something amazing every single time.
As someone who never really played competitive BW, this is so true!
WoL zvz was one of my favorite to watch but most hated to play. It was fast paced, micro intensive, and every single click mattered.
I wish they could take the SC2 pathing, controls, and responsiveness and put it in an AoE style game. Melee, archers, etc... but fast pace and lower unit counts than the empire series.
Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
On January 07 2017 20:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games.
a sad truth
i feel really fortunate to have lived in the two decades where we appreciated mechanics appropriately. fuck the mindgames, sure they play a part, but rts is about microing armies, defending at home and managing resources. i dont see myself spending a dime on an esport thats doesnt have the tension that arises out of multitasking + resource management, its just not impressive, theres no tension or suspense. watching dota players win a cool 10 mil just microing one unit while sc2 players practice for 8 hr days for 40 k is just wrong but thats the world we live in now
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
People in general have always disliked mechanically difficult games. In the past people just put up with it. Developers' knowledge about game design combined with more powerful computers and better written engines allowed for the developing of games that allowed players to enjoy the gameplay aspect of a game more than the mechanical aspect. Gaming back in the 1990s and early 2000s was still incredibly niche, and gamers regarded as social recluses who'd rather spend time alone in front of their computers rather than go out and socialise. Nowadays everybody plays video games, whether it is mobile gaming or console gaming. This is largely due to the evolution in gaming design: playing a video game nowadays does not require you to first spend hours upon hours just learning how the game works. You just start the game and play because the mechanics are obvious and easy. On top of that playing provides a fun and engaging experience and does not feel like working a second job.
Of course there are those games in which mechanics are an important part of the gameplay experience. Starcraft: Brood War and SC2 are games like that, and the Soulsborne series has revived that genre somewhat, although it is not nearly as mechanically demanding as an RTS that requires players to have north of 100 APM just to play halfway decently.
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
People in general have always disliked mechanically difficult games. In the past people just put up with it. Developers' knowledge about game design combined with more powerful computers and better written engines allowed for the developing of games that allowed players to enjoy the gameplay aspect of a game more than the mechanical aspect. Gaming back in the 1990s and early 2000s was still incredibly niche, and gamers regarded as social recluses who'd rather spend time alone in front of their computers rather than go out and socialise. Nowadays everybody plays video games, whether it is mobile gaming or console gaming. This is largely due to the evolution in gaming design: playing a video game nowadays does not require you to first spend hours upon hours just learning how the game works. You just start the game and play because the mechanics are obvious and easy. On top of that playing provides a fun and engaging experience and does not feel like working a second job.
Of course there are those games in which mechanics are an important part of the gameplay experience. Starcraft: Brood War and SC2 are games like that, and the Soulsborne series has revived that genre somewhat, although it is not nearly as mechanically demanding as an RTS that requires players to have north of 100 APM just to play halfway decently.
For a lot of genres this works better than for rts games though i think. RTS games require you to build a base, control huge armies, etc. If you remove more and more mechanics it simply gets closer to a round based game where strategy > everything. Some people surely like that, but at that point, why not play a round based strategy game to begin with? I am not saying that sc2 is even close to that, but to me it looks like that's the direction it is headed and the next big rts will be way, way closer to that. Maybe though it might just remove macro as much as possible and be a lot more about "micro" (abilities...) but even there i doubt people would like it tbh. I think people really dislike any form of multitasking, controlling more than one thing at a time. I don't see how you can make a good rts game without any form of multitaskign though :/
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
maybe that wasn't the author's goal but people here sure are taking the opportunity to rehash the same old "sc2 sucks" arguments
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
maybe that wasn't the author's goal but people here sure are taking the opportunity to rehash the same old "sc2 sucks" arguments
While there surely are people who specifically use every chance to make clear that they dislike sc2 very much, there are also people who simply wanna discuss the differences in game mechanics. I think sc2 could use a lot of things bw did and that it would make it a better game as well. I don't need all the limitations to be happy, i want the effect it had on the game though. If you can get it without removing smartcast (as an example) then i am happy with that as well.
Ofc it depends on what you want out of your rts. I argue though that a game in a franchise should "feel" the same as the games which came before even if it tries new things. It is arguable if sc2 feels the same, i would say no it does not. A good example would be the three base cap in sc2 which simply wasn't there in bw and how it impacts the game (the author mentions this in the blog as well). I don't think it improved the game at all, the change was a bad one. Feel free to disagree but it would be interesting to see why you think so.
That arguing about all of this might be useless is another topic though, but even if sc2 doesn't change the discussion at hand imo is worthwile just because it helps to understand the genre (and a bit of gamedesign)
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
maybe that wasn't the author's goal but people here sure are taking the opportunity to rehash the same old "sc2 sucks" arguments
While there surely are people who specifically use every chance to make clear that they dislike sc2 very much, there are also people who simply wanna discuss the differences in game mechanics. I think sc2 could use a lot of things bw did and that it would make it a better game as well. I don't need all the limitations to be happy, i want the effect it had on the game though. If you can get it without removing smartcast (as an example) then i am happy with that as well.
Ofc it depends on what you want out of your rts. I argue though that a game in a franchise should "feel" the same as the games which came before even if it tries new things. It is arguable if sc2 feels the same, i would say no it does not. A good example would be the three base cap in sc2 which simply wasn't there in bw and how it impacts the game (the author mentions this in the blog as well). I don't think it improved the game at all, the change was a bad one. Feel free to disagree but it would be interesting to see why you think so.
That arguing about all of this might be useless is another topic though, but even if sc2 doesn't change the discussion at hand imo is worthwile just because it helps to understand the genre (and a bit of gamedesign)
If we go by "designed as" then none of what people like about Broodwar is "designed as"
No one made BW so you'd have sprawling bases.
BW was not designed so you needed 500 apm walk and chew gum at the same time--it's just that people realized "you know, these limitations they didn't think about goes away if we just ignore them."
You know how many units they expected armies to be? 12-24, maybe 36 units total, not sauron Zerg, not 100-150 supply worth of units.
You know how many bases they thought people would have? 2-3, just like the multiplayer maps that came with the game suggests. Not the the sprawling vistas that the BW scene had to custom make.
If you want to talk about design intent, let's focus on design intent. If you want to talk about design as practiced, let's talk about design as practiced.
The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games.
Players these days doesnt seem to dislike difficult mechanics as long as they are dynamic, requires decisionmaking and feels rewarding. A good rts will come around sometime and that game will have difficult mechanics. It will have simple macro such as unlimited selection of buildings/units, not send workers to minerals and so on.
But more decisionmaking and much more micro. and difficult micro, requires effort from one and more drawn out fights that require stamina, tactic brain strategy brain fast fingers fast thinking, will be very rewarding game and from that day when this RTS comes, people will look at PC games and say "THIS IS ART".
They will finally understand how good a game can be.
On January 07 2017 20:11 opisska wrote: Why does it matter what "genre" a game is? people are just obsessed with labels ...
This article reads like another attempt to "expertly" shit on sc2. He keeps on saying how he is not saying what is better, yet he is repeatedly judgemental. He also doesnt seem to understand sc2 very well and just parrots the keyboard warrior hate for it that you can see in all of the other "well thought out treatizes" on this matter.
Overall,it is just yet another word vomit for "I'd like to do more mindless clicking". I'd wonder what happened with the "a link to someones blog is not good for a thread" policy, but I am already aware of the "sc2 design flaws cirklejerk" exception.
While i agree that you can tell what the author prefers i still think you are unfair calling it "shitting on sc2". That's more you interpreting something into it which isn't really there.
About the genre label, well it shows the differences between sc bw and sc2 and explains why it feels different. In the traditional sense i wouldn't say it's a different "genre" but more a modernization of the genre. And sc2 is still rather on the "classic" side of things tbf. The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful. The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts
maybe that wasn't the author's goal but people here sure are taking the opportunity to rehash the same old "sc2 sucks" arguments
While there surely are people who specifically use every chance to make clear that they dislike sc2 very much, there are also people who simply wanna discuss the differences in game mechanics. I think sc2 could use a lot of things bw did and that it would make it a better game as well. I don't need all the limitations to be happy, i want the effect it had on the game though. If you can get it without removing smartcast (as an example) then i am happy with that as well.
Ofc it depends on what you want out of your rts. I argue though that a game in a franchise should "feel" the same as the games which came before even if it tries new things. It is arguable if sc2 feels the same, i would say no it does not. A good example would be the three base cap in sc2 which simply wasn't there in bw and how it impacts the game (the author mentions this in the blog as well). I don't think it improved the game at all, the change was a bad one. Feel free to disagree but it would be interesting to see why you think so.
That arguing about all of this might be useless is another topic though, but even if sc2 doesn't change the discussion at hand imo is worthwile just because it helps to understand the genre (and a bit of gamedesign)
If we go by "designed as" then none of what people like about Broodwar is "designed as"
No one made BW so you'd have sprawling bases.
BW was not designed so you needed 500 apm walk and chew gum at the same time--it's just that people realized "you know, these limitations they didn't think about goes away if we just ignore them."
You know how many units they expected armies to be? 12-24, maybe 36 units total, not sauron Zerg, not 100-150 supply worth of units.
You know how many bases they thought people would have? 2-3, just like the multiplayer maps that came with the game suggests. Not the the sprawling vistas that the BW scene had to custom make.
If you want to talk about design intent, let's focus on design intent. If you want to talk about design as practiced, let's talk about design as practiced.
Even if it was all an accident it wouldn't matter for the argument though. We have an end result and people liked that result. Why not look at the causes and try to get the same feeling for the second game in that franchise? I get that as a designer you cannot eb 100% sure about the outcome, what people actually do with the stuff you design. But you can try and give them the tools, see what happens and go from there. If we look at sc2's design goals (blizzard stated these a few times) it looks great, but the means to get there are what is weird. (like the "economy change" they did with lotv which was in reality a simple mapchange and nothign more) As i said, i think it is pretty normal to expect a game in a franchise to "feel" the same way as the other games did. That's one of the reasons nintendo games are liked so much, you know what you get.
The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games.
Players these days doesnt seem to dislike difficult mechanics as long as they are dynamic, requires decisionmaking and feels rewarding. A good rts will come around sometime and that game will have difficult mechanics. It will have simple macro such as unlimited selection of buildings/units, not send workers to minerals and so on.
But more decisionmaking and much more micro. and difficult micro, requires effort from one and more drawn out fights that require stamina, tactic brain strategy brain fast fingers fast thinking, will be very rewarding game and from that day when this RTS comes, people will look at PC games and say "THIS IS ART".
They will finally understand how good a game can be.
I hope you are right but i doubt it As i said before, i don't necessarily need all the bw limitations and difficult mechanics. I am interested in the end result. I think it is important to have clear design goals and don't interfere with these "because something is cool" (i think a lot of sc2's problems stem from that). I doubt there will be such an rts though simply because i don't think your first statement is true at all. What is this game you can send me to which actually does all of that which people like? On top of that i don't see people likign to multitask. Every successful multiplayer game these days requires you to only focus on one specific thing. Even if you reduce macro to basically zero, you need multitasking to control your army. In that hypothetical game this army control would probably be even more difficult because you need the depth there. I doubt people would like it.
EPT
As i said before, i don't necessarily need all the bw limitations and difficult mechanics. I am interested in the end result. I think it is important to have clear design goals and don't interfere with these "because something is cool" (i think a lot of sc2's problems stem from that). 
