EPTI liked the threat title. Made me roll my eyes thinking how the rts genre doomed itself by pushing innovative gameplay away, as it was not rts.
StarCraft II and Brood War Belong to Different Genres - Pa…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I liked the threat title. Made me roll my eyes thinking how the rts genre doomed itself by pushing innovative gameplay away, as it was not rts. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
easier to do some things, harder to do others. both games are too hard to consistently do any of the various types of tasks perfectly against an equally skilled opponent. idk what measurements you do to so confidently say bw is more difficult (like limited unit/building selection? but then sc2 has things that are objectively more difficult to do that bw doesnt. so you'd need to catalog all of these things and then create a system for comparing apples and oranges). anyway, in the end, the knowledge you'd achieve would just be trivia. the way difficulty of mechanics actually matters to competitive players and game designers doesn't care about that analysis | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 03 2017 00:41 NonY wrote: easier to do some things, harder to do others. both games are too hard to consistently do any of the various types of tasks perfectly against an equally skilled opponent. idk what measurements you do to so confidently say bw is more difficult (like limited unit/building selection? but then sc2 has things that are objectively more difficult to do that bw doesnt. so you'd need to catalog all of these things and then create a system for comparing apples and oranges). anyway, in the end, the knowledge you'd achieve would just be trivia. the way difficulty of mechanics actually matters to competitive players and game designers doesn't care about that analysis This is something the author of the blog also talked a bit about in his last one. Tasks which seem to be hard (like scouting and reacting perfectly) and tasks which seem to be easy (like sending your worker to mining). He argues that sc2 deals more with "hard tasks" which makes it more frustrating/harder even though mechanically you have less tasks to do. | ||
|
dantuts
Philippines19 Posts
| ||
|
duke91
Germany1458 Posts
On January 03 2017 00:41 NonY wrote: but then sc2 has things that are objectively more difficult to do that bw doesnt. That's a huge list of nothing | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Too bad even korean progamers/coaches suggested that sc2 is "too hard". It seems these guys disagree with you. While there are simply more tasks in bw that isn't the only measurement of difficulty  | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
SC2 is hard to learn, easy to master. So it seems that to many people, executing more mundane tasks makes the game more fun, even though that is counter-intuitive.. Maybe the way Starcraft operates gives the player, regardless of skill level, more of a feeling that they are improving. It is going to be a huge chore to play many games of SC2, or any other game, without feeling you are getting any better. I also still think that the way units are visible, or not, and the way armies move and the level of micro makes SC2 just less fun as a spectator sport. I agree with Nony that a key skill is to make the right decision under pressure in an actual game. But I wonder if that actually has to do with the mechanics of the game. I hear the speed of SC2 might be a bit higher. It has more to do with keeping your cool and having overhead. Normal decisions have to be automatic. I guess the moment you start thinking consciously and start hesitating, you don't take clear action and you fall apart. This decision has to be taken in miliseconds. I guess that is the hard part of RTS period at the highest level. And that has not so much to do with APM requirements. Also, I'd like to point out that playing with fast and efficient multitasking isn't something that comes from hand speed. It is mental speed. You need to keep this mental task-list of things to do. And you need to update it in real time. The faster you can do this, the higher your apm. I didn't feel SC2 was any fun. Partly because of the reduced focus on mechanics. You can accidentally play the right strategy/unit composition, accidentally decide to attack at the right moment. You cannot accidentally have very good micro or macro. But looking back, the main reason I disliked SC2 is the way units moved and battled took place. Too often two balls of armies attack moving into each other. I just couldn't get over the 200ms unit delay and the clumping/pushing/balling up of units. When SC2 was announced, I had great hopes for getting an even more interesting game (remember some units in Starcraft that were barely used. And maybe TvT being too status quo-ish and ZvZ being too 2-dimensional. I think there was room for improvement and more diverse gameplay. I also hoped for completely different units. But Blizzard decided to keep all core units and to simplify the interface, update the graphics, and see where that would go. I wanted the same gameplay and mechanics, but different units. Not the same units, but different gameplay. I hoped that the way SKorea did Starcraft would cross over. That didn't really hapoen, well at least not with SC2. And even in SKorea, SC2 was a complete flop, but mostly due to Blizzard's war against Kespa, not so much the game itself. Don't forget that in SKorea, there level of skill is still a pyramid. That they have so many very strong players is partly because they have a very wide base of their pyramid. Many people would play Starcraft with their GF/BF, using 50 apm, having a lot of fun. That didn't happen with SC2. I think Blizzard lost a lot of money here. Considering the sales of Starcraft in SKorea, like every 1 in 20 people having bought the game (and consider the number of pirated copies), and considering the role of esports/game being on tv on that. That Blizzard's first move with SC2 in Korea was to shut down Starcraft from national tv, that was a huge blow. Yes, we have streams now, but when Blizzard decided to try to shut down OGN and MBC, online streaming with Twitch or Afreeca wasn't what it is now. It could have been that it would have been completely impossible to even watch. The way Blizzard did the single player is actually even more puzzling. But that's another discussion. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 03 2017 00:41 NonY wrote: easier to do some things, harder to do others. both games are too hard to consistently do any of the various types of tasks perfectly against an equally skilled opponent. idk what measurements you do to so confidently say bw is more difficult (like limited unit/building selection? but then sc2 has things that are objectively more difficult to do that bw doesnt. so you'd need to catalog all of these things and then create a system for comparing apples and oranges). anyway, in the end, the knowledge you'd achieve would just be trivia. the way difficulty of mechanics actually matters to competitive players and game designers doesn't care about that analysis what are those things that are more difficult in sc2? the strategies to apply are kind equal, the macro is more hard in BW no contest here, the micro also is more hard in BW due to the path e various unit limitations i really i can't see in what categories sc2 is harder to be honest On January 03 2017 21:29 Euphorbus wrote: Of course SC2 is more 'difficult'. Every second unit has spellcasting and there are many non-transparent mechanisms in the game. Also, there are many hard counters. SC2 is hard to learn, easy to master. . how much have you played BW? because everyone who played BW until level B on iccup will never say that sc2 is harder, there are many more position gameplay which is very attention and skill demanding in BW than starcraft 2, tank vs defiler anyone? i don't see anything out of the ordinary day in sc2 that there isn't also in BW but at greater order of magnitude, also you are talking about spell in sc2 with smartcast, when in BW you need to select each unit, just talking about mass storm for example, that alone is more difficult than anything in sc2 | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
| ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 03 2017 05:23 The_Red_Viper wrote: Too bad even korean progamers/coaches suggested that sc2 is "too hard". It seems these guys disagree with you. While there are simply more tasks in bw that isn't the only measurement of difficulty ah well i know what they are referring too, it's the old argument about the fact that since sc2 is more easy it's actually more harder, because it's more difficult to emerge from the mass, this is the reason why you see every time a new pro that climb the ladder, where in BW flash was unbeaten for many years... that is not the real definition of difficult | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
| ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4536 Posts
On January 03 2017 21:50 Garmer wrote: how much have you played BW? because everyone who played BW until level B on iccup will never say that sc2 is harder, there are many more position gameplay which is very attention and skill demanding in BW than starcraft 2, tank vs defiler anyone? i don't see anything out of the ordinary day in sc2 that there isn't also in BW but at greater order of magnitude, also you are talking about spell in sc2 with smartcast, when in BW you need to select each unit, just talking about mass storm for example, that alone is more difficult than anything in sc2 Is Nony not B level on Iccup, or are you just ignoring his post to defend your narrative? Some things are harder in BW, some things are harder in SC2, no game is strictly harder than the other. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
Neither me nor Nony is currently B on iccup. But he misread, so his comment is confusing anyway. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4536 Posts
On January 03 2017 22:44 Euphorbus wrote: No game is strictly harder than the other? Really? Yes, you cannot measure how 'hard' SC2 or Starcraft is. But you can in simpler cases. This statement is simply factually wrong. Neither me nor Nony is currently B on iccup. But he misread, so his comment is confusing anyway. I obviously meant "Between SC2 and BW, no game is strictly harder than the other." Not for all games in general.. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
The problem is, you do have to admit that games can be of different skill requirements. Some are 100% luck based. Other games are solved. Then there's a mix of skill and luck. So given that games have different difficulties/skill curves, how can you know that for SC2 and Starcraft, they are exactly the same? It would be very unlikely that they are exactly as difficult, as they are both complex games. Almost certainly, one is harder than the other, just because of the degrees of freedom involved here. | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
That is like saying that chess or go are not strategic because one of them is more strategic. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4536 Posts
You assert yourself that it cannot be measured how hard SC2 or BW is, that answers all your questions. If a value cannot be measured, it can also not be compared. If I score girl A 8/10 for looks and 4/10 for personality, and girl B 4/10 for looks and 8/10 for personality, can you say which girl is "better"? If no, must they therefore be "equal"? Best analogy I could come up with at the minute xD The point is, there are various degrees of freedom at play as you noted, some things will be objectively harder in BW, while some are objectively harder in SC2, and which of these is more important to overall difficulty depends from person to person. Similarly, someone who cares more about personality will say girl B is better, while someone who cares more about looks will say girl A is better, but you cannot objectively say A>B or B>A. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
Because when you talk about Starcraft and SC2 in specific, and then say " no game is" instead of "SC2 is not, ... than Starcraft", it is a general statement about all games. And when you say that Starcraft is not harder than SC2 and SC2 is not harder than Starcaft, it in fact means they are equally difficult. Unless, of course, you mean that they cannot be harder because the concept of 'hardness' is flawed or doesn't exist. But if that is what you meant, you would have just said that. Your comments are confusing and I think it is because you don't realize what the words you are using mean. You assert yourself that it cannot be measured how hard SC2 or BW is, that answers all your questions. If a value cannot be measured, it can also not be compared. I say it cannot be measured because it is a measurement problem. Not a problem of difficulty as a concept not existing. I do not think it is in principle unmeasurable. And I don't think that if we someday measure it, and Starcraft is more difficult than SC2, that it only starts being more difficult from the moment of measurement onward. I think one game is more difficult than the other. I think one can make arguments about which game it is. I have some ideas about how it might possibly be measured. And I do not think that will change based on if we can actually measure it or not. If I score girl A 8/10 for looks and 4/10 for personality, and girl B 4/10 for looks and 8/10 for personality, can you say which girl is "better"? If no, must they therefore be "equal"? How can a girl score 4/10 for personality? I can kind of see how it can score 8/10 for looks. If you are going to use an analogy, find a proper one. And in fact, going along with your argument, you can. You give a weight to both personality and looks. Then you calculate a weighted average. The one with the highest weighted average is 'better'. And they can only be equal if they score exactly the same value. Best analogy I could come up with at the minute xD The point is, there are various degrees of freedom at play as you noted, some things will be objectively harder in BW, while some are objectively harder in SC2, and which of these is more important to overall difficulty depends from person to person. Similarly, someone who cares more about personality will say girl B is better, while someone who cares more about looks will say girl A is better, but you cannot objectively say A>B or B>A. You wouldn't measure how hard a game is on a person by person basis. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4536 Posts
On January 03 2017 23:21 Euphorbus wrote: That's odd. Are you sure you are using the right words? Maybe you meant to say that Starcraft is not in all aspects harder than SC2? Yes, that is exactly what I mean, as noted by "Some things are harder in BW, some things are harder in SC2" Because when you talk about Starcraft and SC2 in specific, and then say " no game is" instead of "SC2 is not, ... than Starcraft", it is a general statement about all games. It isn't. If I talk about 2 specific games and then say: "No game ... than the other" the meaning is pretty clear. And when you say that Starcraft is not harder than SC2 and SC2 is not harder than Starcaft, it in fact means they are equally difficult. I disagree. Refer to my edited example about A and B above. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
 | ||
| ||
