|
On March 10 2011 05:42 floor exercise wrote:
Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me.
If you think that piano is a sport then you have a very, very poor mind.
Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite.
|
On March 10 2011 07:27 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 05:42 floor exercise wrote:
Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me. If you think that piano is a sport then you have a very, very poor mind. Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite.
So BW and piano have even more in common than I originally thought with that sarcastic response. Big ups to Da Vinci for backing me up, whoever that is
|
On March 10 2011 07:46 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 07:27 Kukaracha wrote:On March 10 2011 05:42 floor exercise wrote:
Also, fuck pianists
am I right?
Play a trombone or something, you'll have to use more than your fingers if you want to impress me. If you think that piano is a sport then you have a very, very poor mind. Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite. So BW and piano have even more in common than I originally thought with that sarcastic response. Big ups to Da Vinci for backing me up, whoever that is
BW, not only a sport, but also an art form. I like it.
|
Like Da Vinci said about painting, music is "cosa mentale". It is not about how fast you move your fingers; this is only a prerequisite.
best contribution yet!
|
Come on, Leonardo Da Vinci!
And I don't think BW is an art; probably better this way seeing what art has become today.
What is important is what is added to finger speed and accuracy. In the case of music, there is an interpretation, there is passion, there is beauty; in the case of BW, there is gamesense, knowledge and cleverness. Finger speed is what allows this, but that only means that you can have many people with speed, but a few who have more than that.
Edit: btw I mean "art" as the most rigorous definition possible (objects held as superior). If you use the term "art" in another way, BW could be "art" as we could could say "art of war" for example.
|
On March 09 2011 16:17 Morfildur wrote:
I only played BW ages ago and never competitively (except for always trying to beat my opponents at our small LAN parties) and i'm just a ~2.9k diamond player, so basically a noob.
I'm mostly a spectator and i actually don't care about mechanics when watching. I want to see stuff die, it's as simple as that. I can appreciate clever drops on multiple locations, but i don't _care_ how hard they are to execute.
I want to see strategy and action, not mechanics. Mechanics are boring to watch; Decision making is fun to watch.
I think about 80% of the esports fans will have a similar opinion, no matter what you say... i almost don't even dare to say it, but.... many don't even play SC2 (/SC2 Multiplayer) and never played BW but are still eSports fans and watch games.
Yes, you veterans of this forum love your BW and as much as i concerned you can watch it as much as you want, i just don't think it's entertaining... it's an opinion as valid as yours.
Oh... and before i forget, SC2 is _shiny_... LAZERS! EXPLOSION! GREEN BANELING GOO!
If you don't care about the difficulty behind the game and just want to watch stuff die, why not just watch an action movie? I'm sure that is more explosive and shiny than a computer game.
|
United States11390 Posts
On March 10 2011 04:23 Kukaracha wrote:
Micro is fun but I find that finger speed is much less impressive than intelligence and knowledge.
In the end, BW favours players with high APM and that's not the most interesting thing to watch in my opinion.
Now what I ask from SC2 is to be more complex...
If you like intelligence and knowledge so much then you should love BW as its strategic depth keeps getting better and better. Note that many new things have occured since this Ver post and he didn't even touch on zvp/zvz etc.
On September 28 2010 05:46 Ver wrote:SC mapped out? Few innovators/innovations? Are we watching the same games here? The late 2009/2010 season has been one of the most innovative years ever! There's a large amount of exploring left in many of these systems. For Terran alone (listing general systems, not the absurd amount of variations): TvZ- Safe 14cc on 2 player maps a dozen different variations of bio -> mech and vice versa with a lot more room for further exploration (this is huge!) Flexible Valkyrie first openings that can transition into many different possibilities A totally new approach vs 2 hatch muta with aggressive marine pushes (changes a lot) 7 Rax (and overlord snipes from it) 4 rax -> triple port wraith 2 rax acad allins 3rd denial vs 3 hatch muta (very unexplored and complex) 2 base allin vs crazy zerg (3 hatch muta to ultra) Revolutionary lategame defense based off of aggressive vessel raids, covering infantry, and massed tanks (probably the biggest change in years along with bio-mech transitions) 12pool Lair with a very different and expansive early/midgame Improvements on overall mech play (several new midgame options) Heavy and consistent Vulture/Valkyrie!? (totally unexplored) TvP- Many different 3 base timings Many variations in the 2 fact after cc system both from siege expand and from FD 12 Nexus variations and emphasis 1 fact mine double expand in response to 12 Nexus New midgame Carrier transition ideas both before and after arbiters Rax Expand!! (a huge system with tons more exploration but right now there are many variations already) + Show Spoiler [Some specific games] +As long as the pro scene stays alive in courts BW is fine. SC2 is just new (and getting many temporary tournies/players because of this) and people need a break from BW. Give half a year/year and things should be looking better.
|
A few of the misconceptions that are thrown out that I really dislike:
-BW is stale/not evolving. Blatantly wrong, see Ver's old post (or Harem's right above me) and thats just some of the things that happened in 2010, and 2011 is continuing to show us many innovations and changed as well.
-SC2 doesn't require the same mechanics, therefore there is more room for strategy. First off, one of the great things in my opinion about BW was the extra decision making and strategical element that BW mandated. In other words you had to make a strategical choice about where you wanted to "spend" your APM. Was it best to micro your army? babysit a drop? macro? send probes to mine? Obviously easier mechanics reduces the frequency or difficulty of these choices. Also of relevance is how does less mechanics allow you to do more strategy in the first place?
On March 09 2011 16:17 Morfildur wrote:
I only played BW ages ago and never competitively (except for always trying to beat my opponents at our small LAN parties) and i'm just a ~2.9k diamond player, so basically a noob.
I'm mostly a spectator and i actually don't care about mechanics when watching. I want to see stuff die, it's as simple as that. I can appreciate clever drops on multiple locations, but i don't _care_ how hard they are to execute.
I want to see strategy and action, not mechanics. Mechanics are boring to watch; Decision making is fun to watch.
I think about 80% of the esports fans will have a similar opinion, no matter what you say.
Maybe, maybe you think this way. But most people don't. If this was true why would people watch and prefer pro sports over colligate level sports, or womens sports. Players in college basketball are capable of all the same things an NBA player can do, dunks, 3 point shots, ball handling, etc. Its the skill of the players doing it that is part of the impressiveness. If you want to see stuff die and thats about it then watching someone who is 3k masters shouldn't really be all that different to you from watching progamers. As a whole most players who are reasonable masters can do the same things the pros can, just not as refined. They can certainly make big armies and clash them together just like any player; they just aren't quite as refined at things like macro, scouting, decison making, etc.
Some things I'd like your thoughts on:
1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
|
On March 10 2011 11:04 L_Master wrote:
1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
Very simply put: SC2 is more rewarding to play then BW, because the game is more 'sensitive' to what I want it to do. The only reason BW is harder is because, let's face it, parts of the game are essentially 'broken' from a 2011 gaming point of view. I want to play a game where I don't feel like every single unit needs babysitting to perform even the most basic task. Yet in SC2, you can pull off fairly complex builds without trying too hard.
I'm not denying that at some point games are 'too easy' and can't really be played in MP anymore, and for some of the old-skool BW players I think SC2 is already at that point. I can see this happening in SC2 also, especially with some of the current metagame shifts, but until all matchups get 'solved', we aren't there yet as far as I am concerned.
|
On March 11 2011 08:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 11:04 L_Master wrote:
1. One thing I have never quite sorted out is the whole easier is a compromise to the casuals thing. Why is easier better for casual players. Its a level playing field regardless, everyone in BW had to deal with the same mechanics, the same clunky pathing, its not like the casual player has to deal with a bunch of extra nonsense the experienced player didn't have to.
Very simply put: SC2 is more rewarding to play then BW, because the game is more 'sensitive' to what I want it to do.
2 things :
-this thread is more about watching than playing
-winning at broodwar is one of the most rewarding experience I've had in my life. Just look at this thread :
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=199881
I have not posted in this thread, but I remember clearly my first win against an human (my brother), on Iccup (a ZvP where my opponent raped me with sair reaver on python and decided to transition into carrier), and my first ZvT win two months ago. I can't remember a single game I've won in sc2. Winning a game in BW is amazing.
|
I agree 100% with the OP and the fact about SC2 spoiling the game for the observers with all the info supplied. Everytime I watched a rep I didn't take note of the stats and info, just the players, after that if I'm more interested I checked stats and FPOV of a particular player.
On March 09 2011 09:22 CodECleaR wrote:
... In sc2, i just macro good and a-move, maybe some ff's and storms thats it. It really makes macro style less fun and almost makes me feel like i should be 4gating in pvp or blink stalker rushing every game if i want that "micro rush" i felt so much in BW ...
Before leaving I was just doing the exact same thing in PvP, microing blink stalkers xD
I like both games (BW more) and I think SC2 still have a long way to go (not bashing) and it is natural, BW has over 10 years after all to get to the point where it is now. While I don't play SC2 right now, I know I'm going to buy the expansions no matter what xD
What I hate, is people bashing BW when they have NEVER played it for as long as the people with the experience to talk about it, you just know when some sucker that was on diapers a decade ago start bashing your +10 year beloved game and actually knows crap about it. On the other hand, those BW fanboys that think they are better than you because you play SC2, to each is own but this people just piss me off.
|
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. The game is not something so mystic with regards to how it is played. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
|
I would like to make a small comment.
The upcoming TSL, with its map pool and playerbase, is going to produce games never before seen in SC2's short history. We've had a small preview of what awaits us through the first GTSL and GOM5 as these tournaments also had the same maps, but TSL has the most refined versions thus far.
I feel we will begin to see what true effect macro maps have on SC2 and if Squirtle vs IMMVP is anything to go by, both SC2 and BW "fans" will be in for a treat.
|
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you.
And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
|
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Please don't say how I define myself. Plus I like BW because of its strategy, difficulty just comes with the fact that a game is played strategically. Plus, I definitely, like most BW fans, play more than I watch and its just as fun so please don't say we don't even play.
|
On March 12 2011 08:39 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you. And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
I knew that the word would be misunderstood. I will edit the post now to clarify it.
On March 12 2011 08:43 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Please don't say how I define myself. Plus I like BW because of its strategy, difficulty just comes with the fact that a game is played strategically. Plus, I definitely, like most BW fans, play more than I watch and its just as fun so please don't say we don't even play.
I didn't say you guys don't play. I just said no matter how well you can play, there's quite a high chance you can't pull of something that top players can do. This in my opinion, puts too much emphasis on spectating and not playing. Also, most BW fans say that they like it because the game is harder to play mechanically.
|
On March 12 2011 08:39 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you. And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job.
There's tons of people who want to be good even at SC2, a game universally acknowledge to be easier than BW, and they aren't. They try really really hard, be it to get out of bronze or to reach the highest levels, but they peak, because they don't have it. There's plenty of athletes that never reach the highest level of competition, it's not because they didn't try as hard, it's because they just plain aren't as good.
Not everyone can be good at sports, or video games, or a lot of things in life. What makes you an expert on the things other people are capable of, anyway?
I see tons of people who try and fail at all sorts of things throughout their lives. Video games require a certain amount of hand eye coordination, a certain thought process to be good at, etc. How can you definitively say that every single human being has that exact same capacity to perform? The "anyone can do it" mentality is really absurd to me. It usually always boils down to "I can do that.. if I wanted" which is usually always false but it at least makes sense, it's very common to have an inflated sense of self.
People aren't equal in any facet of life, why would video games be an exception?
|
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Worst generalization in the whole thread.
We discuss a lot about the pro scene because its very active. That doesn't mean that we don't have discussions on individual member's plays. It just got toned down because most people moved to SC2.
|
Nicely written OP. I like both SC2 and BW for reference.
Although I really wish SC2 fanboys would be a little more respectful and a little less ignorant of BW. The BW community really is what made sc2 where it is right now...BW was and still is the original esport. Players who only play sc2 should be aware of this.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves.
Lol yikes...
I've heard a lot of noobie statements, but that right there might be the noobiest/most ignorant of them all. Keep in mind bud that the majority of top level players, a very HIGH majority, all played BW for years. People like incontrol and idra didn't just get good because they started playing SC2 during the beta...it's because they have been playing competitive BW since before most of us have even heard of it.
|
i watch bw. started in 2008.
sometimes i play sc2. i only play sc2 because i can win at it while screwing around, whereas bw is extremely difficult to win and is quite depressing.
on mechanics:
as a spectator, i don't really care about apm, just like i don't really care about 40-yard-dash times in the nfl. the bottom line is, they need to do what they do to win.
when i see a templar drop and a double storm in the same location, i think "oh man, he messed that one up." i don't think "well, if the game had smartcast, this game would be over."
it's like watching soccer and thinking "man, he could've just picked up the ball with his hands and thrown it in." mechanics are like rules, just part of the game.
mechanics should be nearly invisible to the viewer, or at the very least they don't have to be broken down. i don't need someone to tell me how usain bolt's foot angle and stride length are what him fast. that's invisible to me. even at the basic level, the shuttle juke was cool. someone telling me about angles and timing... eh, yea that's cool i guess, but the cool part is that his ship didn't blow up.
a lot of what's attractive about BW is that I would never be able to pull some of it off, not even just in a mechanical sense. flash vs. bisu mine clearing is insane, yet very basic and easy to understand. i feel like if you gave me that situation 100 times, i would fail it all 100 times. on the other hand, with SC2, i've never felt like any of it was really difficult to do. i've never watched a video and thought that it was beyond my level.
what about that video where the guy was talking about how flash left two tanks behind for defense during a vulture harrass and he got off the couch because he was so impressed? no mechanics mentioned at all.
watching giant armies fight each other isn't really impressive at all, but that's what sc2 tends to come down to. whether it's a mechanical issue or how the game works is besides the point; it's just boring as it is.
since i'm an 08'er, i didn't watch old BW. in fact, old BW makes me fall asleep (as does some modern BW). i didn't even watch savior in his prime, but when i watch his games back then, they look clunky and messy compared to modern BW games by people not named jaehoon. so even then, i wasn't always a fan of BW.
whether sc2 gets to that level, time will tell. but as of right now i can say that sc2, for me, is quite boring to watch. and since i have no plans to become pro at sc2 and i only want to be entertained, there is no reason for me to watch sc2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
