Fight game is not true, it’s simply different because the game forces you to learn mechanics instead of just handing it to you on a plate. Like in fighting games you have to practice combos over and over to perfect them, would you consider that fighting the game?
@@gosu1989 you are what we call a sc1 apologist. There is no reason that ordering workers to mine needs to be a ‘game mechanic’. Microing a unit so the games awful pathing doesn’t send it in the wrong direction is not a ‘game mechanic’.
Really? Out of interest can you explain why? I've tried getting into watching Broodwar but I honestly don't find it that exciting. I do like the early game aspect and it appears a lot less 'snowbally' than SC2. But the intense flights, options for unit composition and more units in general is more appealing to me in SC2. However I will admit it feels stale right now.
@@MattMarshallUK It's just different. Broodwar is more like Chess, and SC2 is more like Poker or battleship. BW there's only so many things you can do, which is what makes it so good. Also it just looks better.... it's easier to see what's going on. Every fight is more meaningful. In sc2 it's just minor harrasment and then like 1 or 2 big battles that last 2 seconds.
I think Broodwar is more strategic because of the more "messy" balance and lack of patches. There are certain things in Broodwar that just feel OP, until you figure out a workaround. The only reason that Broodwar still exists as a viable game is because players have been coming up with new strategies to handle various situations. This creates such a strange and dynamic meta game. SC2 at most levels is more about getting the right army composition, and if something starts to feel OP it will just get patched out eventually.
The mechanics in BW don't just make micro harder, but also create additional strategic properties. The huge collision size and tendency of units to block each other mean that just a few well-positioned siege tanks or high templars can "secure" a base and generate near infinite defensive value... unless the enemy attacks in just the right way, in which case they can get wiped off the map for almost free. It also flattens out the power curve of having a bigger army in the late game. A 120 vs 200 supply situation can be iniinitely more playable in SC:BW than SC2, because it's often very hard to even make use of all those extra units. Imo, this greatly expands the space for true strategic thinking. In SC2, I always felt greatly restrained by just having to have a certain army supply at every stage of the game because otherwise the blob blobs into my base and everything dies. While BW gives you so many ways to get into the mid game with a minimal amount of military production, if that's what you prefer.
I don't even think its close tbh. Even the way fights play out in sc1 are insanely strategic in their own right when compared to the vast majority of fights in sc2.
yeah the mechanical load of BW itself opens up new strategic questions and "possibility space" for strategies. Even at the simpler end of examples, the strategy of "do an attack when your opponent is macro-ing to split attention and APM" is even possible at pro-level BW because this forces the opponent to choose where to split APM, between macro or defending against your attack. It's a lot less of a dilemma in SC2 due to improved pathing/targeting of SC2 units and production building control group macro-ing. On the more complex end, the mechanical load of certain units due to bad AI and difficult control means that some units aren't built as much (or require more attention), which means you can build strategy around production and counters as a result of those mechanical factors Now this is *not* to say that mechanical load always leads to a net increase in the strategic space, but rather that it's not inherently a slider between mechanical difficulty and strategic decisions (and arguably this changes between different skill levels- metal leagues generally can't do strategic play when fumbling with mechanical wall)
you dont need bad ai for multitasking to exist. harassing to pull away attention and attacking on multiple fronts, nuking a base while shifting a lib to siege, amoving zealots to a base while you threaten with disruptors.. all this exists in sc2 aswell
@raglock1433 that's true! my point is just that in BW the impact of such tactics are much more devastating to the unprepared- which alone doesn't mean it's more or less strategic, but it does change the strategic calculus to different tactics and timings and builds
I've dedicated my life to play both games, thousands and thousands of hours. Personally I love them both ans enjoy playing both. But for me, lately has been more comfortable and enjoyable playing SC2, but I like SC1 races more. So I've been playing tons of SC:Evo. I just play SC1 races with better pathing and a more enjoyable interface
You have to actually posiiton in BW, not just rely on dedicated worker massacre units and having your or your enemies entire army annihilated in one fight in the middle of the map within 0.0003 seconds.
So Starcraft 1 has a higher mechanical skill ceiling, and in the margins between player and ceiling, more strategic variation can be employed to achieve a win?
Star Craft 1 looks so much better honestly. 2 just feels so tasteless and it’s so cartoonish in comparison. Obviously Remastered is required to take the assets to a modern era, but even classic just has such a better art direction. Warcraft 3 and StarCraft Broodwar just had a more edgy and “realistic” feel to them.
Honestly SC2 players leaving less holes in their "strategy" is not really a good thing, that means the game potentially leaves little to no room for mistakes "fighting the game" is not essentially a bad thing, a game without rules or limitations is honestly lame, its like chess but without rules, all you would need to do is outplay and outplay and lets not forget to outplay
Both games have an infinite skill ceiling. Brood War requires more fundamental mechanics, which creates a certain meta. SC2 automates more mechanics, which allows for higher-level, more creative strategies. Both are infinitely hard, just in different ways.
@@anatolytsinker5317 Its just false, i dont know where sc1 fans get those "facts" from. I just watched Astrea vs Shin on Pigs channel, how are those 2 games int he serie same?
@@CoreySchulz-x5z Also he's just wrong. Nothing in Brood War requires insane reaction speed compared to other Esports, league and sc2 probably the biggest examples, where if you are .1 second late a mine blows up your entire mineral line. In Brood War its oh no a vulture got one extra probe kill. You have like a year and a half to respond to a reaver drop before it even fires and a good 3 months after that to move your works before the shot connects
@@Figgy20000 yes,and sometimes it takes a year and a half to properly defend moves in Brood War. Attacking and defending can potentially be very difficult to coordinate. I used to hate Brood War (fighting the game itself) but now I absolutely love it. Fighting the game is what makes coordinating 24 Dragoons or Goliaths fun when you pull it off!
Years ago I read an article (which I can't find anymore) where someone asked BW pros why they don't want to play more SC2, and they said "it's too hard." Wait, why is that, isn't everything in the game supposed to be easier than before? And yeah, the mechanics were easier, but at the higher level it became a lot more frantic. That got me thinking for years. The author actually loved SC2 more, but that article made me more of a BW fan. It's not a matter of "do this PERFECTLY" because nobody was doing that, you had to make choices of what to focus on. One player might be good at A-B-C-E while another can do A-B-D-F. and I've seen this more in similar games since then, some games focus on the strategy level and micro is just the means to reach that perfection. But the games I end up loving focus on the tactics first, and strategy is born out of that messiness.
It seems like sc2 players are a lot more free to strategize on the fly during matches but sc1 players really have to come with a set strategy and focus on mechanically executing it.
I think what artosis is getting at is while the raw strategy of say expansion timings, unit comps timing attacks are all present in brood war, and probably more present in SC2, there is another level of strategy that is sort of 'meta strategy' and what i mean by that is because success in brood war is much more dependent on mechanics, there is much more thought and strategy that goes into how you manage them or exploit your opponent so they cant manage theirs. Of course SC2 has some of that too but i think there is much less picking and choosing how you manage your control groups and macroing and so on.
I think watching soulkey is what convinced me brood war is more strategic, I can't explain why what he's doing is just so much better than everyone else, and it seems like no one else can either because no one does what he does, and it looks like normal zerg play but somehow it's so much harder to deal with even if the micro isn't better.
Managing resources a part of strategy, and time-management/mechanics is part of resources. SC1 just put a whole lot more emphasis on time-management/mechanics, and that’s why everything else seems less important. Simply put, SC2 has much more quality of life improvements that really make sense while SC1 requires the player to overcome that with time-management/mechanics.
The only reason why BW has an "infinite" scale is because most of the time is fighting the engine itself. Doesn't make it better or even more strategic, just a different design
Artosis: The strategy in sc1 is just so next level it's mind blowing.. Care to further elaborate, like give an example. I'm not going to just take your word for it.
less a comment on strategy, but as a very casual player of basically the campaign and a few custom matches and no real attempt at the ladder, SC2 is so much more enjoyable than starcraft 1. And i grew up with SC1 and have more nostalgia for it. I still hum the terran music often and me and my wife reference the firebat and siege tank voice lines OFTEN. Mostly, its more enjoyable because Starcraft 2 units seem to do what you want them to do without needing to babysit. Dragoon pathing is a MEME ffs. I don't think this makes the game better but maybe more strategic. You just have more to worry about when micromanaging units. I'm sure there's a bunch more to it too the higher level a player you are, but at the very base level of the game, the casual level, the foundational level, sc1 is just more difficult to control than sc2 which could end up trickling down into there being more "strategy" in brood war than in sc2. And that's not even getting into how control groups interact with the player in Brood War vs SC2. Also, and I don't know the history of balance changes in SC1:BW vs the various changes just from Legacy of the Void, but I think this also could shake up strategy. I go off the assumption (possibly incorrectly) that there are less sweeping changes (and less often) to Broodwar vs LOTV. Thus, any strategy developed in Brood War has a lot longer to cook, meaning there is more time to come up with new or creative counters or ways to handle it. Overall, It is my very casual opinion that there is more strategy overall in brood war vs sc2, but I don't necessarily see that as a good thing or even intentionally be design. Curious how people that maybe have more expedience competitively (either following or playing personally) feel about these thoughts.
As a long time fan of both i feel like sc2 at top level has very little actual strategy right now. Protoss and Zerg have certain holes in their unit comps that all 3 races can punish and Terran is just the best at everything at every stage in the game but the game is all about making or surviving to those units and it makes every game look pretty similar. BW seems like it has a lot more varied builds and strategies. The best sc2 players seems like they have better positioning than bw players but im sure a lot of that has to do with the unit control
Good take on it. I enjoy scbw and sc2. I would say I watch more non-tournament sc2 than bw. Although as a spectator i find SC2 has more instances of stalemates, which can sometimes be frustrating/boring to watch. In BW even the downtimes feel tense bc of all the gaps that can be taken advantage of, because the mechanics are so demanding. Makes tournaments so much more meaningful to watch.
I like some of the mechanics in BW but some of them are just cope. Individually controlling units to optimise fights raises the skill ceiling, but bad pathfinding is not a mechanic. e.g. you should have to tell units where to go, but when you tell them, they should go there.
This. I will never and I mean never be a fan of SC1's bad pathfinding and 12 unit selection limits. Even games back than like say Tiberian Sun had much higher unit selection limit and better pathfinding.
People often try to distinguish between mechanics and strategy, but they're closely connected. As Arty points out, even the best players can’t play perfectly and must prioritize certain aspects of the game, which is a core element of strategic decision-making. In Brood War, decisions like when to focus on macro or micro and for how long are critical, contributing to its much higher skill ceiling compared to SC2. In SC2, this concern is minimized, allowing players to focus on reacting to their opponent for example, "If my opponent does X, I’ll build Y to counter." This is likely what Arty means when he says SC2 players have better strategic plans. In SC2, games are often decided by strategy alone, whereas in Brood War, outcomes are more ambiguous due to the sheer number of variables that can go wrong.
I think what is considered "strategy" is very different in BW and SC2. Once you push beyond the "build order" phase of the game, it becomes way more apparent: the map control, economy and composition start playing very different roles. I think for all the attempts to incentivize "player interaction" SC2 doesn't actually do "strategy" part all that well.
sc2 is more strategic in the way that it is the primary way you get ahead, at least at the highest levels in broodwar its more split, which i think makes it more interesting to watch
The amount of strategy that can happen in either game is limited to the mechanical capabilities of the players. If you create a strategy that nobody can execute, it's useless. AI matches in StarCraft are very interesting because the AI, mechanically, is able to do a lot of things that a person can't, so their strategies are very different.
SC2 never grabbed me, played a couple years because finally peers of mine were playing in my small town...fuck no game has ever come close to keeping me coming back... BW forever. playing since '00 and counting. Granddaddy of E-Sports... the insane scene in Korea.. the lore... all of it. LEGENDARY. nothing comes close. Much love for RT and Artosis. shout out to the guys in the chat! bw still changes in meta with no patch in over 2 decades... high skill ceiling and gap... few days to learn basics/years to master... could go back and forth in MU's sc2 came with MBS and auto mine (these were a hack in brood war) I just feel like this game had training wheels... often times the GG was decided after one engagement.. I just enjoyed everything about BW and its difficulty... it felt and still feels much more rewarding when you are victorious in BW edit- Firebathero VICTORY DANCES... enough said.
Strategy to me is more higher level or even meta, things like which build order to use, which way to tech (also part of builds), which expansions to take, and on the meta side which maps to pick, or which builds for mind games to ensure greater advantages later (ex. all-in cheeses early to ensure they can't greed in later maps). These are things you do outside of the game itself though, when you're in you're mostly on auto-pilot completing what you planned already and making minor adjustments based on what your opponent is doing.
As someone who grew up on 90s golden era RTS games like sc1,aoe2,C&C ,empire earth 1 and others, lately I really feel that sc2 lotv(lotv in particular,not WOL/HOTS) is probably one of the least strategic RTS games that I have ever played. In sc2 lotv everything is just so standartized ,all the maps plays extremely similarly(almost the same) ,the difference in how you aproach match ups with different races is also less pronounced than in was in sc2 wol/hots days, what you get rewarded in lotv is just executing the same strategy over and over again, with tiny little adjustments here and there. Compare that to something like aoe4(which I am loving right now),where you REALLY HAVE TO play to the map,think about your civ pick for this particular map and than HEAVILY adapt your playstyle to your oponents civ and also to their play style(are they agro, very deffensive macro or a mix?).In aoe4 the game sure starts much slower than sc2 lotv(every RTS ever made is slower than sc2 lotv) ,but due to that you always have time to scout, to plan ,to react and to adapt.Wining or loosing feels like the result of which player was overall more consistent with their decisions through out the hole match,not just 1 split second long fight(most games lasting between 15-45 mins).In contrast in sc2 lotv I cant count the number of games I have won/lost in a litteral split second(you make a single misclick or lag out of a second just as your army moves out,I guess time to gg out and reque). When to expand(take a 2nd base) was always a pivotal strategic moment in any RTS game ,there is a big beauty to having multiple strategiest be actually viable(like staying on one base super long ,beeing very agro and keeping the game low tech vs expanding fast in a risky way and the hole spectrum of builds in between those 2 extremes),Sc2 lotv completely destroyed that early game beuty in my opinion, you are ALWAYS forced to expand before the 3rd min mark(hell you should have 3 bases by 3mins in) and you are always forced to push out for more expansions and map controll. Sc2 lotv feels like a slug fest right now,3 mins into the game you already need 200+ APM to manage 4 different fronts ,there is ABSOLUTELY no pause in the action and no back and fort(with crazy comeback potentials) ,you just slam into each other ,no time to think ,who ever clicks faster and does a better job of not misclicking wins. I sincerely miss the days of sc2 WOL/HOTS ,back when sc2 had an actuall early low supply games ,back when scrapy battles with just a few units were a thing and keeping each unit alive made a big impact ,back when both quick expanding and 1 base play was viable(now unless you are expanding every 90s ,you are an all in cheeser) ,back when tech choices had more relative strenght than just pure supply(ohh so you got clocked banshes,I guess I ll counter that with mass ling/roach A move because numbers). The thing is ,it's not that sc2 lotv doesnt require any strategy or reward it, the thing is that the game happens so fast,scout/adapt timing are so ludacrisly short ,that modern sc2 boils down to 95% mechanics/APM and about 5% strategy.
Sounds more like a skill issue. If you imprint most of the mechanics in the subconscious. It opens up your attention for scouting. There is lot of tells you can pickup as high level player and change your approach.
Ironically I thought if brood war has SC2’s controls it will be a much better game. The skill ceiling is still so high that the highest level of players can still have tons of stuff to work on and it will save a lot of pain for players with low ~200 apm like me. I just feel so defeated trying to control armies in SC1.
I think another "strategic" component is the increased viability of many units. For example, you dont see truly useless units like scouts. However, it should be noted that constant balance patches does change that a lot
Mechanics = attention = the 3rd resource in BW. It's a 3rd dimension missing from Sc2 and unfortunately gone in modern day gaming where quick time events passes for gameplay
Well Artosis, we can count the viable strategies in all matchups in both games and get the exact answer. We could also count the number of viable all-ins per matchups. One thing for sure, with enough game data, all that could be precisely evaluated. As for my experience, sc1 has more viable strategy then sc2 and the current meta will still evolve as I can see so many flaws in the pro-gamer scene when it comes to strategy.
I think SC2 deals in (x1 100pt) strategies and SC1 deals in (x100 1pt) strategies. It's still the same amount of strategy involved overall, the only difference is in SC2 your fighting your opponent and in SC1 you're fighting yourself
The less ways there are to differentiate yourself competitively the more important the ways that do exist become. If everyone in a tournament can macro perfectly at all times being able to macro perfectly no longer is part of the skill expression for the game at that level of play. There isn't more strategy in SC2 but strategy is rewarded more in SC2 because it is a major area of skill expression still.
What I hate about SC2 can be summed up in one word-a word I hear on almost every stream when watching pro games: "Mix." There’s no real sense of strategy, plan, or counterplan. It’s just about not adding enough roaches, hydras, tanks, or zealots to the mix. In SC2, every unit is useful and universal in its own way. In contrast, in SC1, every unit has a specific purpose, and its presence in an army serves a direct strategic role-far more than just being generically useful. Late-game SC2 feels like a mass of units, where success depends on building a balanced mix to crush the opponent’s army with "F2 + A + Left Click." In contrast, Brood War-which I recently returned to thanks to Artosis-makes every unit feel purposeful. SC1 may be simpler and less diverse in terms of mechanics, but when it comes to strategy, build order choices, and game planning, the difference between SC1 and SC2 is like night and day.
@@1-20sddd If every unit is overall generally "good" that means that you could brainlessly add some portion of these units into the "mix" and still win with F2-A-Click
@@TheNekrussisn't that actually a bad thing. SC2 doesn't have that and you can't win games with just one unit and you need a mix of units. Which I think is good. Just one unit spam is boring.
So you're saying there's too much strategy involved in making the perfect unit composition in sc2 for you? If every unit was a good all around catch all you wouldn't need to add anything to the "mix" because your comp would be good all the time. Also a bit of Dunning Kruger if you're looking at pro matches and all you see is f2 a move. Show a replay of you (and I'll be generous) winning any even numbers engagement in masters 2 or above with an a move.
In SC1 the timing (of attacks etc) seeems much more important, it has much better harrassment (better balanced with potential to kill), sc1 late game is much more fun, positioning of armies etc feels like mind/chess games. In sc2 its all grouped together and over in 30s fight amd thats it...
LOL I was wondering how he was going to save SC1 once again. That is a good one! It is not more strategist, it is just that you have more time for strategy.
Broodwar hasn't had a balance patch in quarter of a century. Of course it is much harder to come up with new strategies, when everything was tried and tested bazillion of times.
What? How in the world did you come up with this from watching the video? We actually have a huge amount of meta shifts and consistently new strategies being made.
Disclaimer: I ♥Both, and I will be reiterating some of Arty's points to highlight my own perspective. In the end I prefer SC1 due to the unit line-up of each race and the unique balance that was created through years of evolution, and yet still there's open space for innovation of strategy. Watching SC1 pro games is infinitely more entertaining for me due to the complex nature of the game and its difficulty, nay even impossibility, to perfect. That way we see more of each player's unique fingerprint on how they approach situations and what they choose to focus on, even if the strategy is the same. On the other hand, my criticism of SC2, from my subjective perspective, firstly, is that all matches feel weirdly linear. There is a correct response and a correct execution, with too few permutations. There are also far too few maps that play with the balance. If you look at SC1 ASL, nearly every season had at least one very different and interesting map. Secondly, I think that the ever-present seeking of true balance for the races is an impossible and futile task that changes the character of the game, without having meaningful results. If SC1 showed anything, it was that all eventually comes into balance through evolving a meta, which broadly points to how the game is played correctly under the circumstances present. It only matters if the meta turns out to be fun and engaging, which it (probably luckily) turned out to be true in SC1's case. Some minor points: I don't like zerg that much in SC2, it was my favourite race in SC1. I don't like queens, it is a necessary unit that serves too many roles and instead of spending larvae and getting enough hatcheries, the focus shifted to injecting. Zerg now always has anti-air and defense against harassment. I don't like some SC2 units and how they were created to meld or broaden the line-up, or in other cases just being annoying to play against or aesthetically boring. I think SC2 slightly suffered from the decision to forcibly make the unit line-up different. Would it really have been wrong if WoL released with the units of BW and then new units were added in the subsequent datadisks? Don't get me wrong, I think some units they added were excellent, but the overall character of each race was changed too much. I tried to be brief, but the discussion of comparing these two is always an interesting topic, even though I realize I digressed somewhat from the topic of strategy to the overall preference and feel.
I agree that a lot of the roster changes between BW and SC2 feel like change for the sake of change. Especially since the trend was to replace, if I may say so, grounded/gritty units with more 'whacky' counterparts: dragoon (cyborg crippled warrior) -> stalker (teleporting egg), firebat (cool guy with flamethrower) -> hellion (transformer buggy with flamethrower)... Thors are cool but too Gundam, Vikings again with the weird transformer trope, and a lot of the Protoss units - Colossus, Oracle, Disruptor - I don't know how exactly to describe it, but they feel too cartoonish and weird, not serious at all. Though I understand why the Reaver was removed at least; with the units clumping up more, it would have been brutal...
I'm gonna come out with a hot take and say that "strategy" and "mechanics" are a difference without a meaningful distinction. Strategy is choosing what to do, and mechanics is actually doing it. But if you think about physical sports, we've all met someone who is like "man why didn't he just catch the ball?" or "Why did they call that play, it's so stupid" or "man, he shouldn't have been hit by that punch, he could have done this instead." The annoying anecdotes that person brings up are "strategy." And that and 2 TTS donations can get arty a drink from starbucks. Strategy doesn't mean anything in the absence of execution - it's fully possible to execute the wrong thing, but it's not possible to win off of making a choice and doing nothing to follow it up, so I think fixating on "strategy" is a really weird concept.
Great points. Soulkey is just such a brainy player, that even when I watch a replay or cast of him his strategy is not obvious. I can see everything he's doing, everything he's building, but the real strategy become clear only seconds before the game ends, or sometimes only after the game already ended. Like when he went 2 hatch muta on Monty Hall vs Snow to provoke overproduction of corsairs and then just hydra busted his front. I didn't understand what I was looking at.
The units in SC2 are about as balanced as they can be without becoming an overly homogeneous. I'd say they've even done well with this recent map pool. You do see the same builds again and again but idk how you solve that without fundamentally changing the game. The "best build" should have a hard counter but it really doesn't feel that way right now.
I started watching SC2 again after RUclips recommended Winter SC2, and I liked it as an end-of-night thing, I likewise found your casts. i found sc1 games are so much different game to game bc of the reason u mentioned
SC2 has more viable builds for any given matchup. Obv the bw mirror matchups are locked in on a few viable units but every match up in sc2 has 2 or more unit comps that will win 10+ min games. More types of unit interactions = more strategy. But bw is a better competitive game.
Something betweem 1 and 2 that fixes some of the glitches, unit pathing and mechanics of Brood War, adds a few more units but not as "death ball-ish" as SC2 would be ideal. Also the graphics of SC2 by trying to be an improvement always look muddy to me on most maps.
I LOVE Broodwar but the battlenet server is pure trash and unplayable here in Australia due to the high Ping. SC2 on the other than still had a somewhat solid and stable ladder for Australia. But if I had a choice I’d rather play broodwar. Sadly it’s not a real choice.
I would say you have it completely twisted. SC2 is mechanically more demanding at a high level, vs broodwar relies more on strategy. You were talking about being better than serral mechanically, but we have seen Clem beat Serral purely by mechanics checking him, and taxing too many banes off of Serrals army, whereas he cannot do that against Reynor, so Serral is not remotely close to the pinnacle of SC2 mechanics. Furthermore I would argue it is exactly the lack of mechanical depth of BW that allows strategies to shine. In BW as well we see strategical portion of the game become less relevant when one player is just a head above other players of his race in terms of mechanics. Think of Snow in PvTs. He could tell the terran he is going 2 base reaver drop in advance and still completely dominate the terrans because he is just mechanically better in the matchup. But that is a rarity in BW, whereas in SC2, there are a lot more mechanical tiers of pro players. As a result a lot more games can be decided by one side mechanics checking the other side.
They both have very similar strategic potential but skill is at least 95% of the game even at the highest level. eg, serral just beats the best players in the world with ling bane run bys and clem can just marine medivac drop players to death.
@@atifarshad7624 What I mean is that your completely impenetrable in 3 base or 4 base, every game goes to macro unless a player 100% all ins. Take BW for example, if Zerg want a gas third that shit is hard to defend, they're open to being attacked on 2 different locations. Same with all the other races, expanding and taking a base is a decision you have to commit to and endure the consequences of. In SC2 zerg just casually has 3 bases in a highground defended by 10 queens and a shit ton of lings, the 4th is the only real 'risk' and even then the opposing player really has to commit to denying it. Same with terran, you just hold 3 bases in a nice pocket, you don't even need 4 with your mule economy. Toss is the only race that struggles to do this, and no wonder they're dogshit in sc2. So yeah, you expand almost for free in sc2, up to an impenetrable point, mass up units, walk across the entire map to your opponent's entrance with 0 conflict along the way since holding the centre of the map in sc2 doesn't fucking mean anything pre 20 minutes. And poke at their 4 bases, and they poke at your 3-4 bases, and eventually a baneling connects or a widowmine goes off or a disruptor shot hits big and someone does lethal damage. It's not interesting imo.
SC1 is more grand strategy but probably its cos the pace of the game is slower. A small mistake in SC2 may lead to doing so much dmg so fast thats hard to recover. from the other side a better micro and higher APM player can outdo much of the better strategy.
idk how that leads to that. The game is slowers, which means if you get behind early you'll be behind for longer and it will just take more time for you to die. Slower =/= comeback mechanics, it just means slower.
@@Mglunafh the slower speed is part of the why. Not the whole answer. For example other thing is that the army is more spread out so you tend to lose part of it. In sc2 you can lose 10 drones in 10 sec for example to an oracle and you are just so much behind. other thing that add more to the strategy is the 50% miss chance. thats huge defender advantage.
@@benismann its just not true. Slower means you have more time to assess and strategize. more time to back off from bad decision. Faster your reaction/APM matters much more.
@@ixirion storm drops, reaver drops in sc1 cripple mineral lines even faster than sc2 oracle so I'm not convinced in the "cost of the small mistakes" argument And "slower speed" in the case of storm drop means, once the psi-storm is casted, my drones will spend more time under it which deals more damage(sc1: 112 over 3sec vs. sc2: 80 over 2.86sec)
SC2 lost my interest completely with the LotV expansion where they dramatically sped the game up. Starting SCV/Drone/Probe count was doubled, all unit/research/upgrade times were basically tripled, building times were reduced. I know they sped up the game to make the pro scene more interesting, have games be 10 minutes instead of 20 or 30, but still.
Not infinite, but I think you mean to say SC1 has a higher skill ceiling. There is basically perfect mechanics which no one in the world is even close to but theoretically there is. SC1 just has one of the highest skill ceilings of any game
At SC2s top level, it is almost completely unnecessary to look at your base to macro, meaning you don't need to make a decision about when to pay attention to macro vs micro. In that sense, due to the QOL improvements in the SC2 UI, the game is more shallow by definition; of course "strategy" is more important when you're missing the entire dimension of "attention."
That is completely absurd. Qol makes the game playable for far more people . If sc2 didn’t have automine I literally wouldn’t play it, much like how I’ve never even attempted competitive broodwar.
@@TheFIRESTARX I mean, let's be frank here. The reason why SC1 was successful as a time is that compared to the other RTS games at the time it actually played really well. SC2 is still considered the unreachable standard of unit control 14 years after it's release. The game being mechanically difficult to play is something that only the hardcore pros enjoy. Sure it can make the matches interesting to watch at times - like WC3 is insanely entertaining to watch when you understand why the things that happen matter. But If a game released with SC1 mechanics today - NOBODY would play it. It would be a game made for the hardcore pros, and never gain an audience. QoL in RTS games are a must for casual players. Heck even Retold which is one of the best RTS releases we had in ages, constantly has people complaining about pathing issues - and that pathing is not only better than SC1 pathing, it's much better than EE pathing. And it still is enough for casual players to feel like the game isn't doing what they are telling it to and quitting the game . The complexity of old RTS games is a relic of the past, that some players will consider the most fun thing in the world, but spell doom for any game that tries to do it. It's all the matter of perspective, we had internet speeds which made sites take minutes to load, but it was the best internet we ever had so we didn't have a problem with it. If your internet took 30 seconds to load a web page today you would file a complaint to your internet provider and consider it unusable until fixed. The same goes for QoL in RTS games
Pretty good take, I would say SC2 lends itself to being more strategic simply because there are more unit types and spells and the additional hotkeys. Definitely agree SC1 is more mechanical. While I enjoy watching SC1, I don’t hate myself enough to play it, lol.
If SC2 still had 6 worker openeings, i would stand by it. SC1 has less unit compositions, there is less room. BUT they're both fantastic and deep, now. As it stands, SC2 with 12 workers. Boring and the worse of the two- The sheer AMOUNT of the game that doesn't exist any more because of it, I don't enjoy playing it since that change came in (yes it's been years, i still play occasionally to get 2v2 master but that's it becsue i dislike the 12 worker openings in 1v1) 2 cents to a pot. worker harass, mineral harass, scouting it all feels wrong nowaday in SC2 not to mention the balance council.. I don't honestly think they want to make the game fun or interesting. It's why Ive been back watching SC1.
The Mechanical cliff is a main contributor to the superiority of BW over SCII as a form of entertainment, not directly as in, "wow that's hard," but also because it had major effects on how the battles played out. Units spreading out, Reaver shots missing, choke points being infinitely more dangerous, having to manually target abilities, etc.
He played it a few months ago for like 30 minutes then quit without saying anything & went back to Brood War because it was so bad. Admittedly, it's possible he was just being a boomer. Half the time was just trying to organise a game with guys in the chat.
Try to imagine all the numbers between 0 to 1(0.1, 0.12, 0.123, 0.1234 ....) they are infinite Now do the same for the numbers between 0 to 100.... Some infinities are bigger, you're right
You're confused, let f(x) = 100x, then we can check that f^-1(x) = x/100. f(f^-1(x))=x and f^-1(f(x)) = x. We concluded that f(x) is a bijection and thus there is exactly as much numbers in (0,1) than in (0,100). Two infinite are different "size" aka cardinality only if you can't make a bijection between the two. You can prove that using Cantor's diagonal argument. N and R are the classic example of two infinite of different size.
@@MLO860. yes. For like ages. SC2 going F2P was actually what made the tournament winnings go up from like 40k for first place to 300k for first place (And then Activision dropped support like 2 - 3 years later)
Starcraft 2: Fight opponent
Starcraft BW: Fight game and opponent
exactly, and fighting the game is half the battle and it's not a strategy half.
And lose to both
Fight game is not true, it’s simply different because the game forces you to learn mechanics instead of just handing it to you on a plate. Like in fighting games you have to practice combos over and over to perfect them, would you consider that fighting the game?
people who talk about fighting the game don't actually play broodwar
@@gosu1989 you are what we call a sc1 apologist.
There is no reason that ordering workers to mine needs to be a ‘game mechanic’.
Microing a unit so the games awful pathing doesn’t send it in the wrong direction is not a ‘game mechanic’.
Brood war there’s a boatload of strategy involved…
“how can I move a dragoon up a ramp” for starters
as a casual returning to both games, brood war is infinitely more entertaining to watch
And to play honestly. I played both at a decent level and SC1 feels 100X more rewarding to go like 1a2a3a4a5a , f2f3f4, control 9 control 0 etc.
Really? Out of interest can you explain why? I've tried getting into watching Broodwar but I honestly don't find it that exciting. I do like the early game aspect and it appears a lot less 'snowbally' than SC2. But the intense flights, options for unit composition and more units in general is more appealing to me in SC2. However I will admit it feels stale right now.
@@MattMarshallUK It's just different. Broodwar is more like Chess, and SC2 is more like Poker or battleship. BW there's only so many things you can do, which is what makes it so good. Also it just looks better.... it's easier to see what's going on. Every fight is more meaningful. In sc2 it's just minor harrasment and then like 1 or 2 big battles that last 2 seconds.
@@alexfriedman2152 Couldn't agree more. Well said.
There is more "chosing a strategy" in SC2 while in SC1 there is more "strategizing your attention" IMO
I think Broodwar is more strategic because of the more "messy" balance and lack of patches. There are certain things in Broodwar that just feel OP, until you figure out a workaround. The only reason that Broodwar still exists as a viable game is because players have been coming up with new strategies to handle various situations. This creates such a strange and dynamic meta game. SC2 at most levels is more about getting the right army composition, and if something starts to feel OP it will just get patched out eventually.
The mechanics in BW don't just make micro harder, but also create additional strategic properties.
The huge collision size and tendency of units to block each other mean that just a few well-positioned siege tanks or high templars can "secure" a base and generate near infinite defensive value... unless the enemy attacks in just the right way, in which case they can get wiped off the map for almost free.
It also flattens out the power curve of having a bigger army in the late game. A 120 vs 200 supply situation can be iniinitely more playable in SC:BW than SC2, because it's often very hard to even make use of all those extra units.
Imo, this greatly expands the space for true strategic thinking. In SC2, I always felt greatly restrained by just having to have a certain army supply at every stage of the game because otherwise the blob blobs into my base and everything dies. While BW gives you so many ways to get into the mid game with a minimal amount of military production, if that's what you prefer.
Well said. That's what I think too.
Well said
I don't even think its close tbh. Even the way fights play out in sc1 are insanely strategic in their own right when compared to the vast majority of fights in sc2.
Good time to bring up the difference between strategy and tactics
@@andrewferguson6901that was my thought exactly.
Of course tactics will be important with longer time to kill and more mechanics.
yeah the mechanical load of BW itself opens up new strategic questions and "possibility space" for strategies. Even at the simpler end of examples, the strategy of "do an attack when your opponent is macro-ing to split attention and APM" is even possible at pro-level BW because this forces the opponent to choose where to split APM, between macro or defending against your attack. It's a lot less of a dilemma in SC2 due to improved pathing/targeting of SC2 units and production building control group macro-ing. On the more complex end, the mechanical load of certain units due to bad AI and difficult control means that some units aren't built as much (or require more attention), which means you can build strategy around production and counters as a result of those mechanical factors
Now this is *not* to say that mechanical load always leads to a net increase in the strategic space, but rather that it's not inherently a slider between mechanical difficulty and strategic decisions (and arguably this changes between different skill levels- metal leagues generally can't do strategic play when fumbling with mechanical wall)
You have the same concept in sc2 with multiprong harass pulling away attention
you dont need bad ai for multitasking to exist.
harassing to pull away attention and attacking on multiple fronts, nuking a base while shifting a lib to siege, amoving zealots to a base while you threaten with disruptors..
all this exists in sc2 aswell
@raglock1433 that's true! my point is just that in BW the impact of such tactics are much more devastating to the unprepared- which alone doesn't mean it's more or less strategic, but it does change the strategic calculus to different tactics and timings and builds
sounds like a cope to me tbh, it's not like sc2 requires less attention, if anything and how quickly shit dies, you prob need more of it..
I've dedicated my life to play both games, thousands and thousands of hours. Personally I love them both ans enjoy playing both.
But for me, lately has been more comfortable and enjoyable playing SC2, but I like SC1 races more. So I've been playing tons of SC:Evo. I just play SC1 races with better pathing and a more enjoyable interface
You have to actually posiiton in BW, not just rely on dedicated worker massacre units and having your or your enemies entire army annihilated in one fight in the middle of the map within 0.0003 seconds.
So Starcraft 1 has a higher mechanical skill ceiling, and in the margins between player and ceiling, more strategic variation can be employed to achieve a win?
Broodwar is timeless❤
My brain is smooth and Star Craft 2 looks prettier
I am not a SC2 hater, it's a fine game but I genuinely think SC1 remastered looks better
@@bernkbestgirlyeah sc1 is more tasteful looking
Star Craft 1 looks so much better honestly. 2 just feels so tasteless and it’s so cartoonish in comparison. Obviously Remastered is required to take the assets to a modern era, but even classic just has such a better art direction. Warcraft 3 and StarCraft Broodwar just had a more edgy and “realistic” feel to them.
RTSs that have detailed and elaborate graphics make it tougher to see what is going on.
brood war graphics are gorgeous.
Honestly SC2 players leaving less holes in their "strategy" is not really a good thing, that means the game potentially leaves little to no room for mistakes "fighting the game" is not essentially a bad thing, a game without rules or limitations is honestly lame, its like chess but without rules, all you would need to do is outplay and outplay and lets not forget to outplay
Both games have an infinite skill ceiling. Brood War requires more fundamental mechanics, which creates a certain meta. SC2 automates more mechanics, which allows for higher-level, more creative strategies. Both are infinitely hard, just in different ways.
Every sc2 game is the same
@@anatolytsinker5317 Ladder would tell you differently
@@anatolytsinker5317 Its just false, i dont know where sc1 fans get those "facts" from. I just watched Astrea vs Shin on Pigs channel, how are those 2 games int he serie same?
Sc1: Consistant APM over a long time
Sc2: Reaction Speed and burst APM
Sc1: Consistent APM over a long time, reaction Speed and Burst APM
Sc2: don't know didn't watch
Points
Why even comment on a video comparing two games when I you know nothing about one of them
@@CoreySchulz-x5z Also he's just wrong. Nothing in Brood War requires insane reaction speed compared to other Esports, league and sc2 probably the biggest examples, where if you are .1 second late a mine blows up your entire mineral line. In Brood War its oh no a vulture got one extra probe kill. You have like a year and a half to respond to a reaver drop before it even fires and a good 3 months after that to move your works before the shot connects
@@Figgy20000 yes,and sometimes it takes a year and a half to properly defend moves in Brood War. Attacking and defending can potentially be very difficult to coordinate. I used to hate Brood War (fighting the game itself) but now I absolutely love it. Fighting the game is what makes coordinating 24 Dragoons or Goliaths fun when you pull it off!
Years ago I read an article (which I can't find anymore) where someone asked BW pros why they don't want to play more SC2, and they said "it's too hard." Wait, why is that, isn't everything in the game supposed to be easier than before? And yeah, the mechanics were easier, but at the higher level it became a lot more frantic. That got me thinking for years. The author actually loved SC2 more, but that article made me more of a BW fan. It's not a matter of "do this PERFECTLY" because nobody was doing that, you had to make choices of what to focus on. One player might be good at A-B-C-E while another can do A-B-D-F. and I've seen this more in similar games since then, some games focus on the strategy level and micro is just the means to reach that perfection. But the games I end up loving focus on the tactics first, and strategy is born out of that messiness.
It seems like sc2 players are a lot more free to strategize on the fly during matches but sc1 players really have to come with a set strategy and focus on mechanically executing it.
I think what artosis is getting at is while the raw strategy of say expansion timings, unit comps timing attacks are all present in brood war, and probably more present in SC2, there is another level of strategy that is sort of 'meta strategy' and what i mean by that is because success in brood war is much more dependent on mechanics, there is much more thought and strategy that goes into how you manage them or exploit your opponent so they cant manage theirs. Of course SC2 has some of that too but i think there is much less picking and choosing how you manage your control groups and macroing and so on.
I think watching soulkey is what convinced me brood war is more strategic, I can't explain why what he's doing is just so much better than everyone else, and it seems like no one else can either because no one does what he does, and it looks like normal zerg play but somehow it's so much harder to deal with even if the micro isn't better.
Managing resources a part of strategy, and time-management/mechanics is part of resources. SC1 just put a whole lot more emphasis on time-management/mechanics, and that’s why everything else seems less important. Simply put, SC2 has much more quality of life improvements that really make sense while SC1 requires the player to overcome that with time-management/mechanics.
The only reason why BW has an "infinite" scale is because most of the time is fighting the engine itself. Doesn't make it better or even more strategic, just a different design
There's more to it than that
Artosis: The strategy in sc1 is just so next level it's mind blowing..
Care to further elaborate, like give an example. I'm not going to just take your word for it.
less a comment on strategy, but as a very casual player of basically the campaign and a few custom matches and no real attempt at the ladder, SC2 is so much more enjoyable than starcraft 1. And i grew up with SC1 and have more nostalgia for it. I still hum the terran music often and me and my wife reference the firebat and siege tank voice lines OFTEN.
Mostly, its more enjoyable because Starcraft 2 units seem to do what you want them to do without needing to babysit. Dragoon pathing is a MEME ffs. I don't think this makes the game better but maybe more strategic. You just have more to worry about when micromanaging units. I'm sure there's a bunch more to it too the higher level a player you are, but at the very base level of the game, the casual level, the foundational level, sc1 is just more difficult to control than sc2 which could end up trickling down into there being more "strategy" in brood war than in sc2. And that's not even getting into how control groups interact with the player in Brood War vs SC2.
Also, and I don't know the history of balance changes in SC1:BW vs the various changes just from Legacy of the Void, but I think this also could shake up strategy. I go off the assumption (possibly incorrectly) that there are less sweeping changes (and less often) to Broodwar vs LOTV. Thus, any strategy developed in Brood War has a lot longer to cook, meaning there is more time to come up with new or creative counters or ways to handle it.
Overall, It is my very casual opinion that there is more strategy overall in brood war vs sc2, but I don't necessarily see that as a good thing or even intentionally be design.
Curious how people that maybe have more expedience competitively (either following or playing personally) feel about these thoughts.
I agree.
As a long time fan of both i feel like sc2 at top level has very little actual strategy right now. Protoss and Zerg have certain holes in their unit comps that all 3 races can punish and Terran is just the best at everything at every stage in the game but the game is all about making or surviving to those units and it makes every game look pretty similar.
BW seems like it has a lot more varied builds and strategies.
The best sc2 players seems like they have better positioning than bw players but im sure a lot of that has to do with the unit control
Good take on it. I enjoy scbw and sc2. I would say I watch more non-tournament sc2 than bw. Although as a spectator i find SC2 has more instances of stalemates, which can sometimes be frustrating/boring to watch. In BW even the downtimes feel tense bc of all the gaps that can be taken advantage of, because the mechanics are so demanding. Makes tournaments so much more meaningful to watch.
I like some of the mechanics in BW but some of them are just cope. Individually controlling units to optimise fights raises the skill ceiling, but bad pathfinding is not a mechanic. e.g. you should have to tell units where to go, but when you tell them, they should go there.
You should try Cosmonarchy. It greatly improves BW pathing and other QoL things
This. I will never and I mean never be a fan of SC1's bad pathfinding and 12 unit selection limits. Even games back than like say Tiberian Sun had much higher unit selection limit and better pathfinding.
People often try to distinguish between mechanics and strategy, but they're closely connected. As Arty points out, even the best players can’t play perfectly and must prioritize certain aspects of the game, which is a core element of strategic decision-making. In Brood War, decisions like when to focus on macro or micro and for how long are critical, contributing to its much higher skill ceiling compared to SC2. In SC2, this concern is minimized, allowing players to focus on reacting to their opponent for example, "If my opponent does X, I’ll build Y to counter." This is likely what Arty means when he says SC2 players have better strategic plans. In SC2, games are often decided by strategy alone, whereas in Brood War, outcomes are more ambiguous due to the sheer number of variables that can go wrong.
And yet, recent Clem's games vs serral feel a lot about INCREDIBLE micro of marines.
Love these type of videos. Your insight into game mechanics/strategy and theory is always a pleasure to listen to.
I think what is considered "strategy" is very different in BW and SC2.
Once you push beyond the "build order" phase of the game, it becomes way more apparent: the map control, economy and composition start playing very different roles. I think for all the attempts to incentivize "player interaction" SC2 doesn't actually do "strategy" part all that well.
sc2 is more strategic in the way that it is the primary way you get ahead, at least at the highest levels
in broodwar its more split, which i think makes it more interesting to watch
The amount of strategy that can happen in either game is limited to the mechanical capabilities of the players. If you create a strategy that nobody can execute, it's useless. AI matches in StarCraft are very interesting because the AI, mechanically, is able to do a lot of things that a person can't, so their strategies are very different.
SC2 never grabbed me, played a couple years because finally peers of mine were playing in my small town...fuck no game has ever come close to keeping me coming back... BW forever. playing since '00 and counting.
Granddaddy of E-Sports... the insane scene in Korea.. the lore... all of it. LEGENDARY. nothing comes close.
Much love for RT and Artosis.
shout out to the guys in the chat!
bw still changes in meta with no patch in over 2 decades... high skill ceiling and gap... few days to learn basics/years to master... could go back and forth in MU's
sc2 came with MBS and auto mine (these were a hack in brood war) I just feel like this game had training wheels... often times the GG was decided after one engagement..
I just enjoyed everything about BW and its difficulty... it felt and still feels much more rewarding when you are victorious in BW
edit- Firebathero VICTORY DANCES... enough said.
Automine is not training wheels, it’s basic quality of life lmfao.
@@TheFIRESTARXyeah. Especially since stuff like auto mining and more than 12 units selection were already common in RTS around thar time.
Strategy to me is more higher level or even meta, things like which build order to use, which way to tech (also part of builds), which expansions to take, and on the meta side which maps to pick, or which builds for mind games to ensure greater advantages later (ex. all-in cheeses early to ensure they can't greed in later maps). These are things you do outside of the game itself though, when you're in you're mostly on auto-pilot completing what you planned already and making minor adjustments based on what your opponent is doing.
next tournament flash will show up with two keyboards to macro even better.
As someone who grew up on 90s golden era RTS games like sc1,aoe2,C&C ,empire earth 1 and others, lately I really feel that sc2 lotv(lotv in particular,not WOL/HOTS) is probably one of the least strategic RTS games that I have ever played.
In sc2 lotv everything is just so standartized ,all the maps plays extremely similarly(almost the same) ,the difference in how you aproach match ups with different races is also less pronounced than in was in sc2 wol/hots days, what you get rewarded in lotv is just executing the same strategy over and over again, with tiny little adjustments here and there.
Compare that to something like aoe4(which I am loving right now),where you REALLY HAVE TO play to the map,think about your civ pick for this particular map and than HEAVILY adapt your playstyle to your oponents civ and also to their play style(are they agro, very deffensive macro or a mix?).In aoe4 the game sure starts much slower than sc2 lotv(every RTS ever made is slower than sc2 lotv) ,but due to that you always have time to scout, to plan ,to react and to adapt.Wining or loosing feels like the result of which player was overall more consistent with their decisions through out the hole match,not just 1 split second long fight(most games lasting between 15-45 mins).In contrast in sc2 lotv I cant count the number of games I have won/lost in a litteral split second(you make a single misclick or lag out of a second just as your army moves out,I guess time to gg out and reque).
When to expand(take a 2nd base) was always a pivotal strategic moment in any RTS game ,there is a big beauty to having multiple strategiest be actually viable(like staying on one base super long ,beeing very agro and keeping the game low tech vs expanding fast in a risky way and the hole spectrum of builds in between those 2 extremes),Sc2 lotv completely destroyed that early game beuty in my opinion, you are ALWAYS forced to expand before the 3rd min mark(hell you should have 3 bases by 3mins in) and you are always forced to push out for more expansions and map controll.
Sc2 lotv feels like a slug fest right now,3 mins into the game you already need 200+ APM to manage 4 different fronts ,there is ABSOLUTELY no pause in the action and no back and fort(with crazy comeback potentials) ,you just slam into each other ,no time to think ,who ever clicks faster and does a better job of not misclicking wins.
I sincerely miss the days of sc2 WOL/HOTS ,back when sc2 had an actuall early low supply games ,back when scrapy battles with just a few units were a thing and keeping each unit alive made a big impact ,back when both quick expanding and 1 base play was viable(now unless you are expanding every 90s ,you are an all in cheeser) ,back when tech choices had more relative strenght than just pure supply(ohh so you got clocked banshes,I guess I ll counter that with mass ling/roach A move because numbers).
The thing is ,it's not that sc2 lotv doesnt require any strategy or reward it, the thing is that the game happens so fast,scout/adapt timing are so ludacrisly short ,that modern sc2 boils down to 95% mechanics/APM and about 5% strategy.
I don't think SC2 Lotv is any less strategic than most of the C&C games (which are often just tank spam). And I say this as a massive C&C fan.
Sounds more like a skill issue. If you imprint most of the mechanics in the subconscious. It opens up your attention for scouting. There is lot of tells you can pickup as high level player and change your approach.
No one noticed the chat about Infested Kerrigan, huh? xD
Sc2 is very straight forward. Brood war can have a multitude of factors, down to a single unit dying making the difference between winning or losing.
A factor you didn’t bring up is that the patches in starcraft 2 means pros have to adjust strategies whenever things are changed
good point
Ironically I thought if brood war has SC2’s controls it will be a much better game. The skill ceiling is still so high that the highest level of players can still have tons of stuff to work on and it will save a lot of pain for players with low ~200 apm like me. I just feel so defeated trying to control armies in SC1.
I think another "strategic" component is the increased viability of many units. For example, you dont see truly useless units like scouts. However, it should be noted that constant balance patches does change that a lot
Mechanics = attention = the 3rd resource in BW. It's a 3rd dimension missing from Sc2 and unfortunately gone in modern day gaming where quick time events passes for gameplay
Attention is definitely a resource in sc2.
@@sambobly it's not the same kind
lol mechanics/attention is a missing dimension in sc2? This has to be bait
@@JohnDoe-l4d9hthese people clearly don’t actually play and just listen to people talk and repeat opinions. Absolutely absurd talking points.
@@TheFIRESTARX exactly, it’s gonna Be a very biased topic in this channel
I would assume 1. 2 seems more like throwing your army at your enemies.
Well Artosis, we can count the viable strategies in all matchups in both games and get the exact answer. We could also count the number of viable all-ins per matchups. One thing for sure, with enough game data, all that could be precisely evaluated. As for my experience, sc1 has more viable strategy then sc2 and the current meta will still evolve as I can see so many flaws in the pro-gamer scene when it comes to strategy.
I think SC2 deals in (x1 100pt) strategies and SC1 deals in (x100 1pt) strategies. It's still the same amount of strategy involved overall, the only difference is in SC2 your fighting your opponent and in SC1 you're fighting yourself
The less ways there are to differentiate yourself competitively the more important the ways that do exist become. If everyone in a tournament can macro perfectly at all times being able to macro perfectly no longer is part of the skill expression for the game at that level of play. There isn't more strategy in SC2 but strategy is rewarded more in SC2 because it is a major area of skill expression still.
It’s a thrill for me to figure out what art means at the same time as art
What I hate about SC2 can be summed up in one word-a word I hear on almost every stream when watching pro games: "Mix."
There’s no real sense of strategy, plan, or counterplan. It’s just about not adding enough roaches, hydras, tanks, or zealots to the mix. In SC2, every unit is useful and universal in its own way. In contrast, in SC1, every unit has a specific purpose, and its presence in an army serves a direct strategic role-far more than just being generically useful.
Late-game SC2 feels like a mass of units, where success depends on building a balanced mix to crush the opponent’s army with "F2 + A + Left Click."
In contrast, Brood War-which I recently returned to thanks to Artosis-makes every unit feel purposeful. SC1 may be simpler and less diverse in terms of mechanics, but when it comes to strategy, build order choices, and game planning, the difference between SC1 and SC2 is like night and day.
Being honest, that second paragraph makes no sense.
@@1-20sddd If every unit is overall generally "good" that means that you could brainlessly add some portion of these units into the "mix" and still win with F2-A-Click
@@TheNekruss as if that's something that ever happens in pro sc2
@@TheNekrussisn't that actually a bad thing. SC2 doesn't have that and you can't win games with just one unit and you need a mix of units. Which I think is good. Just one unit spam is boring.
So you're saying there's too much strategy involved in making the perfect unit composition in sc2 for you? If every unit was a good all around catch all you wouldn't need to add anything to the "mix" because your comp would be good all the time.
Also a bit of Dunning Kruger if you're looking at pro matches and all you see is f2 a move. Show a replay of you (and I'll be generous) winning any even numbers engagement in masters 2 or above with an a move.
In SC1 the timing (of attacks etc) seeems much more important, it has much better harrassment (better balanced with potential to kill), sc1 late game is much more fun, positioning of armies etc feels like mind/chess games. In sc2 its all grouped together and over in 30s fight amd thats it...
Would you say Light is mechanically a monster and is weaker strategically, and that’s holding him back a bit?
Brood war players should NOT be allowed to have these types of conversations. We’re too broken and biased
LOL I was wondering how he was going to save SC1 once again. That is a good one! It is not more strategist, it is just that you have more time for strategy.
nah, in BW you just make a bunch of Arbiters and mass recall to their main. Doesn't sound like a lot of strategy to me :-)
Broodwar hasn't had a balance patch in quarter of a century. Of course it is much harder to come up with new strategies, when everything was tried and tested bazillion of times.
What? How in the world did you come up with this from watching the video?
We actually have a huge amount of meta shifts and consistently new strategies being made.
Disclaimer: I ♥Both, and I will be reiterating some of Arty's points to highlight my own perspective.
In the end I prefer SC1 due to the unit line-up of each race and the unique balance that was created through years of evolution, and yet still there's open space for innovation of strategy. Watching SC1 pro games is infinitely more entertaining for me due to the complex nature of the game and its difficulty, nay even impossibility, to perfect.
That way we see more of each player's unique fingerprint on how they approach situations and what they choose to focus on, even if the strategy is the same.
On the other hand, my criticism of SC2, from my subjective perspective, firstly, is that all matches feel weirdly linear. There is a correct response and a correct execution, with too few permutations.
There are also far too few maps that play with the balance. If you look at SC1 ASL, nearly every season had at least one very different and interesting map.
Secondly, I think that the ever-present seeking of true balance for the races is an impossible and futile task that changes the character of the game, without having meaningful results. If SC1 showed anything, it was that all eventually comes into balance through evolving a meta, which broadly points to how the game is played correctly under the circumstances present. It only matters if the meta turns out to be fun and engaging, which it (probably luckily) turned out to be true in SC1's case.
Some minor points:
I don't like zerg that much in SC2, it was my favourite race in SC1.
I don't like queens, it is a necessary unit that serves too many roles and instead of spending larvae and getting enough hatcheries, the focus shifted to injecting. Zerg now always has anti-air and defense against harassment.
I don't like some SC2 units and how they were created to meld or broaden the line-up, or in other cases just being annoying to play against or aesthetically boring. I think SC2 slightly suffered from the decision to forcibly make the unit line-up different. Would it really have been wrong if WoL released with the units of BW and then new units were added in the subsequent datadisks? Don't get me wrong, I think some units they added were excellent, but the overall character of each race was changed too much.
I tried to be brief, but the discussion of comparing these two is always an interesting topic, even though I realize I digressed somewhat from the topic of strategy to the overall preference and feel.
I agree that a lot of the roster changes between BW and SC2 feel like change for the sake of change. Especially since the trend was to replace, if I may say so, grounded/gritty units with more 'whacky' counterparts: dragoon (cyborg crippled warrior) -> stalker (teleporting egg), firebat (cool guy with flamethrower) -> hellion (transformer buggy with flamethrower)... Thors are cool but too Gundam, Vikings again with the weird transformer trope, and a lot of the Protoss units - Colossus, Oracle, Disruptor - I don't know how exactly to describe it, but they feel too cartoonish and weird, not serious at all.
Though I understand why the Reaver was removed at least; with the units clumping up more, it would have been brutal...
Brood War is superior in every way
I'm gonna come out with a hot take and say that "strategy" and "mechanics" are a difference without a meaningful distinction. Strategy is choosing what to do, and mechanics is actually doing it. But if you think about physical sports, we've all met someone who is like "man why didn't he just catch the ball?" or "Why did they call that play, it's so stupid" or "man, he shouldn't have been hit by that punch, he could have done this instead."
The annoying anecdotes that person brings up are "strategy." And that and 2 TTS donations can get arty a drink from starbucks. Strategy doesn't mean anything in the absence of execution - it's fully possible to execute the wrong thing, but it's not possible to win off of making a choice and doing nothing to follow it up, so I think fixating on "strategy" is a really weird concept.
Great points. Soulkey is just such a brainy player, that even when I watch a replay or cast of him his strategy is not obvious. I can see everything he's doing, everything he's building, but the real strategy become clear only seconds before the game ends, or sometimes only after the game already ended.
Like when he went 2 hatch muta on Monty Hall vs Snow to provoke overproduction of corsairs and then just hydra busted his front. I didn't understand what I was looking at.
The units in SC2 are about as balanced as they can be without becoming an overly homogeneous. I'd say they've even done well with this recent map pool.
You do see the same builds again and again but idk how you solve that without fundamentally changing the game. The "best build" should have a hard counter but it really doesn't feel that way right now.
I appreciate SC 1 built in jankyness.
I started watching SC2 again after RUclips recommended Winter SC2, and I liked it as an end-of-night thing, I likewise found your casts. i found sc1 games are so much different game to game bc of the reason u mentioned
SC2 has more viable builds for any given matchup. Obv the bw mirror matchups are locked in on a few viable units but every match up in sc2 has 2 or more unit comps that will win 10+ min games. More types of unit interactions = more strategy.
But bw is a better competitive game.
I should look at some more SC Evo games that are just BW vs BW. Feels like that mod would illuminate the topic more.
Sc1 is the qwop of rts.
Tasteless passion CONFIRMED
Something betweem 1 and 2 that fixes some of the glitches, unit pathing and mechanics of Brood War, adds a few more units but not as "death ball-ish" as SC2 would be ideal. Also the graphics of SC2 by trying to be an improvement always look muddy to me on most maps.
I LOVE Broodwar but the battlenet server is pure trash and unplayable here in Australia due to the high Ping.
SC2 on the other than still had a somewhat solid and stable ladder for Australia.
But if I had a choice I’d rather play broodwar. Sadly it’s not a real choice.
1:32 Correct way to say it is *"opinion of color"* 😂😂😂
Lol like we don't already know exactly what artosis is going to say.
I would say you have it completely twisted. SC2 is mechanically more demanding at a high level, vs broodwar relies more on strategy. You were talking about being better than serral mechanically, but we have seen Clem beat Serral purely by mechanics checking him, and taxing too many banes off of Serrals army, whereas he cannot do that against Reynor, so Serral is not remotely close to the pinnacle of SC2 mechanics.
Furthermore I would argue it is exactly the lack of mechanical depth of BW that allows strategies to shine. In BW as well we see strategical portion of the game become less relevant when one player is just a head above other players of his race in terms of mechanics. Think of Snow in PvTs. He could tell the terran he is going 2 base reaver drop in advance and still completely dominate the terrans because he is just mechanically better in the matchup. But that is a rarity in BW, whereas in SC2, there are a lot more mechanical tiers of pro players. As a result a lot more games can be decided by one side mechanics checking the other side.
BW and it’s not even close. Anyone who’s watched both games at the highest level wouldn’t even have to ask this question
Broodwar made me scream, and StarCraft 2 has bummed me out. Everything about BW is more engaging imo, even if you want to slap your SCVs.
Just pause the stream for ten minutes and make this video.
lol how's that even a question... SC II since the stupid 12 worker update is 100% execution, zero strategy, zero thought involved
They both have very similar strategic potential but skill is at least 95% of the game even at the highest level. eg, serral just beats the best players in the world with ling bane run bys and clem can just marine medivac drop players to death.
SC2 is an APM check. Broodwar is an everything check.
Broodwar easily, sc2 is just massing up units and chilling in your 3-4 base layout
The latter part can't be more further from the truth. If anything, SC2 is a bit too much about expanding expanding and expanding.
@@atifarshad7624 What I mean is that your completely impenetrable in 3 base or 4 base, every game goes to macro unless a player 100% all ins.
Take BW for example, if Zerg want a gas third that shit is hard to defend, they're open to being attacked on 2 different locations. Same with all the other races, expanding and taking a base is a decision you have to commit to and endure the consequences of.
In SC2 zerg just casually has 3 bases in a highground defended by 10 queens and a shit ton of lings, the 4th is the only real 'risk' and even then the opposing player really has to commit to denying it.
Same with terran, you just hold 3 bases in a nice pocket, you don't even need 4 with your mule economy.
Toss is the only race that struggles to do this, and no wonder they're dogshit in sc2.
So yeah, you expand almost for free in sc2, up to an impenetrable point, mass up units, walk across the entire map to your opponent's entrance with 0 conflict along the way since holding the centre of the map in sc2 doesn't fucking mean anything pre 20 minutes. And poke at their 4 bases, and they poke at your 3-4 bases, and eventually a baneling connects or a widowmine goes off or a disruptor shot hits big and someone does lethal damage. It's not interesting imo.
SC1 is more grand strategy but probably its cos the pace of the game is slower. A small mistake in SC2 may lead to doing so much dmg so fast thats hard to recover. from the other side a better micro and higher APM player can outdo much of the better strategy.
Let's make a small mistake of wandering with sc1 marines into the burrowed lurkers or storms or reavers and see how easy you can recover from that
idk how that leads to that. The game is slowers, which means if you get behind early you'll be behind for longer and it will just take more time for you to die. Slower =/= comeback mechanics, it just means slower.
@@Mglunafh the slower speed is part of the why. Not the whole answer. For example other thing is that the army is more spread out so you tend to lose part of it.
In sc2 you can lose 10 drones in 10 sec for example to an oracle and you are just so much behind.
other thing that add more to the strategy is the 50% miss chance. thats huge defender advantage.
@@benismann its just not true. Slower means you have more time to assess and strategize. more time to back off from bad decision. Faster your reaction/APM matters much more.
@@ixirion storm drops, reaver drops in sc1 cripple mineral lines even faster than sc2 oracle so I'm not convinced in the "cost of the small mistakes" argument
And "slower speed" in the case of storm drop means, once the psi-storm is casted, my drones will spend more time under it which deals more damage(sc1: 112 over 3sec vs. sc2: 80 over 2.86sec)
@2:13 the most important part of this video
Ur welcome 👍
SC2 lost my interest completely with the LotV expansion where they dramatically sped the game up. Starting SCV/Drone/Probe count was doubled, all unit/research/upgrade times were basically tripled, building times were reduced. I know they sped up the game to make the pro scene more interesting, have games be 10 minutes instead of 20 or 30, but still.
Not infinite, but I think you mean to say SC1 has a higher skill ceiling. There is basically perfect mechanics which no one in the world is even close to but theoretically there is. SC1 just has one of the highest skill ceilings of any game
It's infinite because theoretical perfect mechanics are physically impossible for a human to achieve.
@@illiberalautist2222 and those exist in sc2 too. Literally just worker micro is already impossible to do
@@benismann wrong.
At SC2s top level, it is almost completely unnecessary to look at your base to macro, meaning you don't need to make a decision about when to pay attention to macro vs micro. In that sense, due to the QOL improvements in the SC2 UI, the game is more shallow by definition; of course "strategy" is more important when you're missing the entire dimension of "attention."
That’s not remotely true, and there’s so much more multiprong harassment that keeps your attention split.
Queen injects, chrono and mules all require you to look at base.
That is completely absurd. Qol makes the game playable for far more people . If sc2 didn’t have automine I literally wouldn’t play it, much like how I’ve never even attempted competitive broodwar.
Have you even played the game?
💀
@@TheFIRESTARX I mean, let's be frank here. The reason why SC1 was successful as a time is that compared to the other RTS games at the time it actually played really well. SC2 is still considered the unreachable standard of unit control 14 years after it's release. The game being mechanically difficult to play is something that only the hardcore pros enjoy. Sure it can make the matches interesting to watch at times - like WC3 is insanely entertaining to watch when you understand why the things that happen matter. But If a game released with SC1 mechanics today - NOBODY would play it. It would be a game made for the hardcore pros, and never gain an audience.
QoL in RTS games are a must for casual players. Heck even Retold which is one of the best RTS releases we had in ages, constantly has people complaining about pathing issues - and that pathing is not only better than SC1 pathing, it's much better than EE pathing. And it still is enough for casual players to feel like the game isn't doing what they are telling it to and quitting the game .
The complexity of old RTS games is a relic of the past, that some players will consider the most fun thing in the world, but spell doom for any game that tries to do it. It's all the matter of perspective, we had internet speeds which made sites take minutes to load, but it was the best internet we ever had so we didn't have a problem with it. If your internet took 30 seconds to load a web page today you would file a complaint to your internet provider and consider it unusable until fixed. The same goes for QoL in RTS games
Pretty good take, I would say SC2 lends itself to being more strategic simply because there are more unit types and spells and the additional hotkeys. Definitely agree SC1 is more mechanical. While I enjoy watching SC1, I don’t hate myself enough to play it, lol.
Sc2 has better graphics for me personally so it wins
If SC2 still had 6 worker openeings, i would stand by it. SC1 has less unit compositions, there is less room. BUT they're both fantastic and deep, now. As it stands, SC2 with 12 workers. Boring and the worse of the two- The sheer AMOUNT of the game that doesn't exist any more because of it, I don't enjoy playing it since that change came in (yes it's been years, i still play occasionally to get 2v2 master but that's it becsue i dislike the 12 worker openings in 1v1) 2 cents to a pot. worker harass, mineral harass, scouting it all feels wrong nowaday in SC2 not to mention the balance council.. I don't honestly think they want to make the game fun or interesting. It's why Ive been back watching SC1.
Artosis what is your opinion on age of empires 2?
ruff stuff is right
I wish i can play starcraft 1. i am from south africa and its so laggy, cause of net issues. its totally fine for sc2 though
TASTELESS WAS RIGHT
The Mechanical cliff is a main contributor to the superiority of BW over SCII as a form of entertainment, not directly as in, "wow that's hard," but also because it had major effects on how the battles played out. Units spreading out, Reaver shots missing, choke points being infinitely more dangerous, having to manually target abilities, etc.
Has he tested "Beyond all Reason"?
He played it a few months ago for like 30 minutes then quit without saying anything & went back to Brood War because it was so bad.
Admittedly, it's possible he was just being a boomer. Half the time was just trying to organise a game with guys in the chat.
Sc1 wins by a mile
Looking back I'm just so much more entertained by SC1
I like most of the SC2 QoL issues, but I hate the units and design of SC2
Please give SCB. The control of SC2. Its annoying & and dissatisfying the SCB controls. No smart casting. Doesn't let me enjoying the game.
BW is more fun to watch
Try to imagine all the numbers between 0 to 1(0.1, 0.12, 0.123, 0.1234 ....) they are infinite
Now do the same for the numbers between 0 to 100....
Some infinities are bigger, you're right
You're confused, let f(x) = 100x, then we can check that f^-1(x) = x/100. f(f^-1(x))=x and f^-1(f(x)) = x. We concluded that f(x) is a bijection and thus there is exactly as much numbers in (0,1) than in (0,100). Two infinite are different "size" aka cardinality only if you can't make a bijection between the two. You can prove that using Cantor's diagonal argument. N and R are the classic example of two infinite of different size.
those are of the same volume tho?
Cool beans
Indeed.
Bought warcraft 1 (of the real warcraft series) and SC1 when they came out. Never purchased SC2 and have no plans on ever doing so.
Its free to play😂
@MyLifeFrAiurGaming the full game?
@@MLO860. yes. For like ages. SC2 going F2P was actually what made the tournament winnings go up from like 40k for first place to 300k for first place (And then Activision dropped support like 2 - 3 years later)
ggs
Starcraft 3