Unlike SC1's maps which looked like actual territories you want to conquer, SC2's maps look like sharply symetrical multiplayer arenas, which ruins the RTS feeling of the game.
You nailed it. I grew up on Sc1 and played tons of Sc2 in the last 10 years. I also think how closely sc2 units clump is entirely stupid. A maxed out sc1 battle takes up more than a screen and FEELS big. A maxed out sc2 army fits into the aoe of 2 psionic storms.
I agree that granularity is very compelling in RTS, but also it'd be nice for that granularity to emerge because of well-designed mechanics and deep strategy rather than because the pathfinding is terrible and you have an artificial maximum on the number of units you can select at once
IMO I think it would be a better game if the units were like, 50% less incompetent. A little bit of that jitteryness helps spread units out, and is very important for how units interact. Keep everything else as is, and build a game around all the other mechanics. A lot of the uniqueness of BW isn't even related to the pathing, but SC2 decided not to port them in. High ground advantage, units having firing arcs of 90 to 180 degs where they shoot the fastest without slowing down, "dumb" casting, overkill, more granular damage types (S/M/L instead of do bonus or do poorly), strong DOT spells instead of strong DPS spells (the difference being that spamming is a lot less useful), scaling mining eco.
imagine a most streamlined user interface of unit control and commands and the biggest of scales of player interaction. Thatd be impressive granularity.
The way RTS games are now seems to cast doubt on your narrative here. The truth is the "artificially" hard things are exactly what gives things granularity in the first place. If everything is easy and accessible, you won't get granularity because all the most important things are very easy to do. We see this problem now with a lot of modern RTS games. Developers need to impose "artificial" constraints on what players can do, otherwise you're going to end up with an auto-batter like Mechabellum, or just an "RTS" without macro like Stormgate.
Nobody found a solution to that and one thing we know for certain is that automation is detrimental to granularity so better stick to the formula until a completely random company makes a perfect competitive/accessible RTS and btw that's how esport born... Not by huge companies deciding out of the blue that a game is an esport. Also the fun/accessibile factor is completely relative, now we have new generations completely spoiled by automation so anything less that that feels clunky and unfun. God, they don't even play RTS anymore, they play MOBA
The one thing I actually prefer in Starcraft 1 over 2, is the atmosphere. I think they nailed that much better with the graphics designs and audio. Starcraft 2 feels a bit softer compared to what it should be
SCBW has a ton of interesting things, conceptually, and I like watching it a lot more (specially because of unit design), but it's so hard to give up on the "QoL improvements" when you're actually playing.
I know right. The 12 unit limit is especially triggering. I grew up playing it but man, going back to it is torture. I don't know if ya'll even use control groups or just repeatedly box armies until you get em all in there, but I try to have finer control so I keep having to make ctrl groups. It is not fun when you're older, stresses me tf out.
@@stankobarabata2406 You should check out Cosmonarchy. It's a total overhaul in the SC1 engine, completely removes the unit and building selection limits and also adds a lot of units with very unique designs
@@stankobarabata2406 Is it even a 12 unit limit? I could have sworn that BW still had 10. Warcraft 3 has 12 units per group...though I might just misremember
So many people got into Brood War after starting with SC2, but the learning curve is definitely there. But if you ever wanted to, the Brood War community welcomes everyone with open arms PiG! ❤️
@@markmuller7962Respectfully, that is just untrue. I was used to SC2 qol but got into bw. PiG got into AoE2 that also has a learning curve. It‘s just different and you have to be open to learn.
@@havior6617 2 people doesn't make a general trend, as a nerd you should know that. And btw I've never switched to sc2 so your impulsive claims are even weirder
That's pretty much it. I will say that what granularity adds on the table is some thresholds which when people reach them, lower level players lose instantaneously. If you can defend your wood and you are stuck in AOE2, it's very hard to make a comeback vs someone that would harras you effectively, same in broodwar. If you are slow in building your turrets vs zerg (even if they go lurkers) it's game over. So as a player you know you've reached a timing threshold and that makes you feel good. The less the granularity, the less thresholds of automatic wins / automatic losses there are.
sc1 gets harder to play as you expand and take more bases which creates a self balancing effect per game. SC2 doesn't have that, hence you get deathballs.
I do t really see the whole deathball thing. Not since wings of liberty anyway where Colossus did like 20 damage to everything and people hadn't figured out EMP yet and high Templar warped in with storms. Or when broodlord investor was just so overpowered thanks to fungals being effectively a hitscan attack that decimated marines and Thors back then decided pissing on the opponent was effective anti air. The game is a lot better now than it was back then. The big deathballs now only happen when the game can even reach the late stage and it's late stage is more about positioning, spellcaster use, and countering your opponent over making the late game unstoppable op composition.
this so much this, sc2 late game basically boils down to you win the first large battle the opponent cant do anything because it snowballs. in broodwar you can use defence and choke points to get back in the game, making defense and siege important in broodwar unlike in sc2 where its just large army a moves into base and its over
@@soldier22881 maybe in lower leagues you can do that. But taking a bad fight by trying to shove in a fortified position is a good way to toss away your advantage.
There are lots of things i like about sc1, but units not doing what you tell them to do is not a feature, it's a bug. When units can't go up stairs, or decide to path the opposite way etc that doesn't add anything. Some people saying it is better because it requires more micro just to walk in a straight line is pure cope. The good micro is when you increase the efficiency of your army with good positioning, cast spells well, etc. individually blinking stalkers are an example of good micro in a game. Having to tell a unit to go over there over and over and over again just to get them to actually do it is not good micro. Also this pathfinding issue is a limitation of the technology of the time, not an intentional gameplay mechanic. There's a SC1 modder (necron or something like that) that has an excellent video on how SC1 pathfinding works with zones etc.
I think all you'd need to "fix" it is to have the units be about 50% less incompetent. Some of that jitteryness is quite important in how units interact with each other. They create weakpoints for you to manage and enemies to exploit. They reduce the effectiveness of splash damage a bit, they reduce the DPS density during attacking.
The bad pathfinding isn't even entirely an artifact of the time, it an artifact of things being changed at the last minute. Take a look at something like Warcraft 2. Despite being an older RTS than Starcraft by the same devs, the pathfinding is signficantly better, if not up to today's standards.
The approach to pathfinding all old RTS games used wasn't just good enough. In wc2 it is not good by modern standards. Adding extra bugs and weirdness onto something that fundamentally sucks didn't help.
@@pawelmurias wc2 had good enough pathfinding for its own environment. It would t hold up in a modern RTS but it worked well given all units had to move aligned with the grid and that all units were the same size being 1x1 for land units and I think 2x2 for naval or air units which moved on a separate grid from land units. The biggest issues with wc2 was just units not trying to get around obstacles they would just stop if a long enough section of trees or units were in the way as they couldn't push anything.
@@mwperk02 the not pushing other units around is why the warcraft 2 pathfinding fundamentally sucks. actually I made an RTS with more modern pathfinding and (some) warcraft 2 assets and you really could see the difference
Granularity is great and all, but I like it when telling your units what to do in a way they'll actually listen doesn't require you to become one of the top pro players
3:50 - Never saw a wrong statement in my entire life, finishing a SC 1 match and getting 15+ mmr felt like i fought for my life and was out of air, simply uncomfortable af. Winnin a SC 2 match and getting 15+ mmr felt like "yeah! That was nice". You have to be a masochis to enjoy that, Age 2 has some "sand" over it, but its way way way way better than what you have in SC 1 and more close to Age 4.
I think SC2 also deserves credit for having much more balanced unit rosters and greater build diversity, honestly - I'll admit that I haven't played Brood War directly, but from watching hundreds of casts, it feels like huge swathes of the unit roster just go completely unused most of the time. Look at Zerg for instance - BW Zerg just goes Muta 90%+ of the time, while SC2 Zerg can do many combinations of lings, banes, hydras, roaches, mutas, infestors, lurkers, nydus, etc. I feel like this is a better place for that "granularity" to emerge from - not from having workers that just don't mine, units that get confused going up ramps, etc.
Most high level zergs in BW go for either muta, as you said, or some kind of hydra play, then transition into a defiler lategame with either ultralisks or lurkers. There's very little variety outside of that, maybe mass cracklings? You almost never see queens, guardians, devourers. So yeah, I agree that there is much more unit variety in SC2, and a lot more viable strategies with those units as a result, without needing to constantly fight the game itself, and that makes it a better game.
thats a good analysis, i like how smooth and precise the unit movement is, lots of ui improvements but it doesnt feel good playing it, sc2 feels like it just boils down to 1 large army a moving to victory because once you lose the first battle its over because how easy it is to rally units and the separate rally point for workers. Broodwar although clunky its designed on purpose, units dont move precisely which makes controlling a large army difficult, thus if you do lose the first major battle you have a chance to recover, every unit serves a purpose and strategy is what wins the game rather than giant clump of units like in sc2.
That is a nice explanation. When i was playing SCBW, i felt there was always a chance to come back in a game. I dont feel that to the same level in SC2, if you get behind, its not as easy to get even again Despite that, i think i like SC2 better, because of the control (units, selection etc). :)
The RTS genre will continue to remain dead for as long as game developers keep trying to "fix" the "problem" of managing resources, bases and unit production. By simplifying or outright removing those aspects of the genre, it has been pushed more towards micro/unit abilities. But the thing is, Age of Empires 2 has a comprehensive back and forth of what beats and almost no active abilities on units. This makes microing your armies simpler and allows you to focus on the more nuanced resource gathering, base building and progression through the tech tree.
Granulation is indeed a factor, but I think where BW scores the most points compared to most RTS in general, is the army movement and selection. The movement is less consistent and responsive, but a lot more organic and scuffly. It sacrificies fluidity of ultra precise micro for fluidity of units feeling like real soldiers with minds of their own. And the 12 unit selections naturally lead to less giant battles and instead more skrimishes, which most of us like a lot more bith to watch and to play. That being said, BW can be incredibly infuriating to play. It is a slow buildup into a house of cards that can collapse if you breathe too hard. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the ladder wasn't in such a sorry state with its countless multi-account smurfs (on every league basically), hackers, glitch exploiters, trolls etc. forcing you to commit even more of your day before you actually play a game that scratches the right itch.
As someone who played both games extensively, but more or less left SC1 behind when SC2 came out, I will say that the restrictions in the game is what is the most annoying about it. The 12 unit selection limit for example. The pathfinding is just crap, there's no other way to put it. Units constantly get stuck on terrain or on each other, they get in each other's way when you're trying to construct a building, and you hear Artosis complaining about this kind of thing all the time. It feels like half the APM you spend in SC1 is actually making your units do what you tell them to do, and needing to move small groups at once. Not to also mention that the majority of the ladder maps in SC1 are 4 player spawns, because early game cheese is so strong that 2 player spawn maps would be imbalanced. SC2 also has a larger unit variety, and more strategies that can be applied overall.
totally agreed. this is what makes it really great to watch pro level sc1. you can truly appreciate the skill it takes just to do basic army control while still macroing...however, you could argue the opposite. like, why is it interesting to watch players use so much APM fighting the game engine? wouldnt you rather see their APM going towards decision making or in playing a game that just works? where as battle aces went the opposite direction in taking sc2 and whittling it down to bare bones. id really love someone to do the opposite. take sc2 and make it as hard as sc1 but for all the right reasons and not because you need to work with broken pathing, unit AI, 12 units in control group, etc...
Also the baneling is just a dumb unit. Queens defending everything early on. and banes f2ing into armies makes the battles not that interesting. Lotta sc2 massive battles last 3 seconds
I love starcraft 2 but i feel like zerg is kinda broken. Having only 3-5 production buildings all on 1 hotkey, auto rally for workers, F2 button with inlimited selection, creep and mass queens, kinda feels meh. Ovis just always getting the scout on pillars. Can have the same opening for all 3 matchups. I love sc2 but it feels cheap mechanically sometimes. Zerg is just too strong imo
The player base will be wider due to less granularity. I never played sc2 even though I grew up with it. Every time I tried, I got bored with the nonsense busybody micro. This was before the starting drone increase
SC1 is great, it's hard for me to deal with the pathing though. AoE2 pathing is already annoying enough but I grew up with that. SC2 is still my favorite game for meta, only 3 factions is part of that. AoE4 though is what I've been gravitating to. It's not perfect but it's far more interesting to me meta wise that Aoe2. I like how fast siege sets up, it makes things engaging in a way SC traditional was. I've often not enjoyed micro in Aoe2, but 4 takes solid influence from SC.
The pathing in AoE 2 also improved over the years massively, especially with DE. Same with the QoL features. Dunno why, but the AoE 2 community is much less puritarian about this than BroodWar
@@ottokarl5427 I own AoE2 HD but not DE yet, I'll have to try it. I think Age finally getting proper competitive support goes a long way to sneaking in improvements, the change is already happening. BW has iconic history based around micro that overcomes pathing. It might invalidate too much of the games history to make changes.
@@app2530 I guess it depends on the unit, but I'm sure you'd acclimate if you gave it more time. I feel stuff moves pretty quick and snappy, of course some maps are just large large. For slow things like siege your supposed to navigate those behind your lines so there is a more deliberate commitment to how you use them. They'll feel less slow if you focus on the fast moving front line and take a more relaxed approach to the back line.
@@UberOcelot The AoE 2 community really never was too hung up over getting QoL features for their game. For example, just with the last big patch, we got Load-In Support, meaning it has become much easier to get units into Siege or Transporters (it now function as it does in SC2 essentially). Before that though, there was a bit of a debate about a new feature: They implemented the Farm-Placement-Mechanic from AoE 4, meaning you can quick-place farms around a Mill now. Some players argued that this was a step too far in the automization of the game, though even the GOAT himself said it was fine, so the debate settled down rather quickly.
So, you have your X APM. Which would you prefer it being spent on: a) managing 2-3 harass points, constantly scouting, manuvering and carefully arranging and positioning the main army, while occasionally pressing buttons to sustain eco, production and upgrades; b) constantly clicking each individual production facility and each new unit, so that it would start doing something, while trying desperately to have your army (that acts like a brainless clump of stuff) not disperse or walk head first into opponents firing range and occasionally dropping a mineral line in a mostly "fire and forget" manner? Which main showdown is more interesting to both play and watch: a) where you control almost every single unit or, at least, small groups of units to constantly outposition, outmanuever and outmicro your opponent, so your army looks almost like every unit has a mind of its own; b) where you desperately try to get units to do what you want instead of some weird stuff, prevent them from mixing up and a whole thing degrading into a total chaos? I loved BW with all its quirks, but calling a choice of "which chore am I going to do, so that my eco and army dont fall apart simultaneously" a good, meaningful choice is pure copium and nostalgia. The choises that come from jankiness of in-game systems are an artificial complexity. They are not nearly as fun to make, act out and watch, as the choices that are related to an actual strategy or at least tactics. They are not what you want your players' and spectators' attention to be spent on. Asking for more "strategic" choises instead of "click this button 10 times to do a menial task" in a real time (!)strategy game, just wow, I know. Also, sense of pride and achievement in RTS games comes first and foremost from outsmarting your opponent. If you want it to come from managing to mindnumbingly repeatedly click every prod building and new unit ... then maybe just tapping a hamster with leaderboards attached will do the trick better? Iloveoov was a fantastic player, but I'd rather watch MMA's games.
I think its unfair to say sc1 is chess and sc2 is checkers but i think its a little bit like that. Since there more potential mistakes to be made, there is more complexity to the game.
Sc2 is checkers, but sc1 is also checkers except you are playing it while riding on top of a camel, balancing the checkerboard on top of the hump, and the camel is on an airplane going through turbulence and you’re also the airplane pilot
SC1 you could have epic games that go on for really long time and the battles themselves lasted a lot longer as the counters were no where near as severe. Also SC1 gave the defenders a more realistic advantage that added to this. The high ground mechanic in SC2 is terrible. In sc2 you have no advantage of the high ground apart from vision which is ridiculous. The loss of the Arbiter was basically like removing the ghost from the terran race. The Arbiter is at the heart of almost all Protoss SC1 strategies. The medivac is an insanely stupid idea and made terran bio too powerful.
sc1 one/two base all ins would be much stronger with medics instead of drop ships with heal, as you need a starport to make medivacs, unless they made medics require a tech lab, then yeah bio would be dead. So either way, you make them much stronger early and useless late (like they are in sc1) or useful all game, which is what they went with.
@@vexienroe Do note that Bio is still very useful lategame against Zerg, the SK Terran style where you snipe Defilers and Lurkers with Vessels, and DPS down everything else with Marine/Firebat/Medic. The real problem making them unviable against Protoss and Terran is splash damage. Reavers absolutely clown on Bio, nobody has the APM to dodge every single Scrab shot, and T doesn't have the production speed and eco of Zerg to compensate. For fighting T, Vultures can kill an almost infinite number of Marines, and Siege Tanks make it basically impossible for Marines to get close. You see this in SC2 TvT too, long Siege lines make it practically impossible for Marines to exist. In SC2 PvT, Collossi can't deal with Marauders, and are easily taken out by Vikings or Ravens. ZvT, Lurkers can get taken out by Snipe, Banelings are _mostly_ managable, though production rates are a bit better in SC2.
@@Appletank8 sc2 has banelings and aoe ultras. So the only match-up you think they are used in would not be used. Plus in sc2 lots of people use bio against tanks
The depth that comes from having to deal with garbage controls is not the kind of depth I can enjoy. It just annoys the shit out of me. Maybe if I had a PC when I was little and would've gotten into SCBW when I was a kid I would think differently, but I got into RTS when SC 2 was already about 7-8 years old, so no chance of going back now.
If SC1 is more unique because it's less user-friendly compared to SC2 then I don't see that as a positive. I like both games and I bought SC1 remastered but the controls in SC2 are just so smooth that I'll always favor it over SC1. But the story in SC1 is better, especially at the point when all of a sudden you play Zerg for the first time right after Kerrigan got abandoned. I do like the SC2 campaign as well though, especially WoL because Terrans are the only funny race. Given that the story-telling is handicapped by requiring constant battles that have to stay entertaining and diversified while also slowly introducing new units they did a great job in both games.
Yeah, I loved only being able to select 12 units at a time and having what should be a 2 step process be a 6 step process. So fun, guys. It's granular. Sorry, but having grown up with BW, SC2 is the superior game when it comes to gameplay. BW beats SC2 on story and atmosphere, and that's why BW is so beloved today, not because Artosis is addicted to the ladder.
@@MrStevegibb I recall that the Zerg rush was invented in SC1, not SC2. In fact, being overrun by a ball of death of cheap units was kind of a rite of passage.
"Should be". Maybe unit production in SC2 should be a toggle as well instead of pressing the button every 10~15 seconds? Or maybe that would just be a fundamentally different game.
@@eduardoserpa1682 Idk maybe. There are mods that let you toggle on auto-build marines and SCVs until saturated. It still felt like the same game fundamentally to me. At the very least, plenty of games have lots of depth for micromanaging while still allowing options for some level of automation so you can focus on bigger things, and they're no less for it. 4X games come to mind.
@@Suprentus Only really early on when people barely knew what they're doing, and 4 pools did actually get nerfed. Spawning Pools got a +50 in mineral cost. Most of the time any amount of defense will stop 4 pools from working due to a complete lack of eco to keep them going. They do still happen though, because greed play is always a thing, and a rush attack is its perfect counter, but it's very rare to see someone try for it. Both sides basically have to play blindly for it to work, the defender makes an early expansion without making a single defensive unit on the assumption their opponent stays home. The rusher doesn't make any eco on the assumption that they will win the game in the next 5 minutes. If it doesn't work, it's an instant GG.
I think the idea of having the challenge of a game come from unintentional horribly coded / broken / glitchy features is pretty interesting. It's like pure annoyance / difficulty for difficulties sake rather than for a purposeful reason. Like if u just added all kinds of RNG glitches SC2 (like every once in a while, a worker would just walk away from mining) or every once in a while your unit chooses to walk backward instead of forward, people would lose their mind and say the game is trash but if u have all those dumb bugs and glitches unintentionallly, then it's just part of the "art" or "craft" of playing the game. Kind of reminds me of a musical instrument like piano vs trumpet. On piano everything just works - you press a key and it makes a perfect sound. On trumpet, you need to spend years getting to the point where any individual note you play actually sounds good. People say thats the beauty of a wind instrument and if on piano they made it so that you had to hit the key in an extremely precise way just to make the note resonate well, people would hate it. So it feels like it's almost impossible for a modern game (piano) to compete with these old broken games challenging ass games (trumpet).
_SC1_ is not more granular than _SC2._ Granularity is about the level of complexity, variety of options, and fineness of control. Making it more difficult to perform the exact same task increases none of those things. It just makes the game more mechanical. Frankly, _SC1_ is a bit like _Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy._ Its clumsy controls don't actually increase the difficulty; they just reduce expectations.
that's 1 positive about BW but there are multiple draw backs to it which makes SC2 the superior game in the big picture. and im someone who grew up playing BW..
The real difference is there's no valkyrie that says "who's your mommy" in starcraft 2 but there is in starcraft 1
Big SC2 L, love flying missile spam. Closest I can get is Coop Raynor's Vikings with splash. Very sad.
@@Appletank8 there are h&h vikings that have a missle salvo ability.
correct
Unlike SC1's maps which looked like actual territories you want to conquer, SC2's maps look like sharply symetrical multiplayer arenas, which ruins the RTS feeling of the game.
You nailed it. I grew up on Sc1 and played tons of Sc2 in the last 10 years.
I also think how closely sc2 units clump is entirely stupid. A maxed out sc1 battle takes up more than a screen and FEELS big. A maxed out sc2 army fits into the aoe of 2 psionic storms.
I agree that granularity is very compelling in RTS, but also it'd be nice for that granularity to emerge because of well-designed mechanics and deep strategy rather than because the pathfinding is terrible and you have an artificial maximum on the number of units you can select at once
IMO I think it would be a better game if the units were like, 50% less incompetent. A little bit of that jitteryness helps spread units out, and is very important for how units interact. Keep everything else as is, and build a game around all the other mechanics. A lot of the uniqueness of BW isn't even related to the pathing, but SC2 decided not to port them in.
High ground advantage, units having firing arcs of 90 to 180 degs where they shoot the fastest without slowing down, "dumb" casting, overkill, more granular damage types (S/M/L instead of do bonus or do poorly), strong DOT spells instead of strong DPS spells (the difference being that spamming is a lot less useful), scaling mining eco.
The difference between soft beach sand and broken glass
imagine a most streamlined user interface of unit control and commands and the biggest of scales of player interaction. Thatd be impressive granularity.
The way RTS games are now seems to cast doubt on your narrative here. The truth is the "artificially" hard things are exactly what gives things granularity in the first place. If everything is easy and accessible, you won't get granularity because all the most important things are very easy to do. We see this problem now with a lot of modern RTS games. Developers need to impose "artificial" constraints on what players can do, otherwise you're going to end up with an auto-batter like Mechabellum, or just an "RTS" without macro like Stormgate.
Nobody found a solution to that and one thing we know for certain is that automation is detrimental to granularity so better stick to the formula until a completely random company makes a perfect competitive/accessible RTS and btw that's how esport born... Not by huge companies deciding out of the blue that a game is an esport.
Also the fun/accessibile factor is completely relative, now we have new generations completely spoiled by automation so anything less that that feels clunky and unfun. God, they don't even play RTS anymore, they play MOBA
Btw that granularity creates an intrinsic organic come back mechanics and game balance
The one thing I actually prefer in Starcraft 1 over 2, is the atmosphere. I think they nailed that much better with the graphics designs and audio. Starcraft 2 feels a bit softer compared to what it should be
SCBW has a ton of interesting things, conceptually, and I like watching it a lot more (specially because of unit design), but it's so hard to give up on the "QoL improvements" when you're actually playing.
I know right. The 12 unit limit is especially triggering. I grew up playing it but man, going back to it is torture. I don't know if ya'll even use control groups or just repeatedly box armies until you get em all in there, but I try to have finer control so I keep having to make ctrl groups. It is not fun when you're older, stresses me tf out.
@@stankobarabata2406 You should check out Cosmonarchy. It's a total overhaul in the SC1 engine, completely removes the unit and building selection limits and also adds a lot of units with very unique designs
@@stankobarabata2406 Is it even a 12 unit limit? I could have sworn that BW still had 10. Warcraft 3 has 12 units per group...though I might just misremember
@@ottokarl5427 I think it's 12.
So many people got into Brood War after starting with SC2, but the learning curve is definitely there.
But if you ever wanted to, the Brood War community welcomes everyone with open arms PiG! ❤️
It's not about learning curve, it's about being used to certain QOL that makes it almost impossible for them to enjoy BW
@@markmuller7962Respectfully, that is just untrue. I was used to SC2 qol but got into bw. PiG got into AoE2 that also has a learning curve. It‘s just different and you have to be open to learn.
@@havior6617 2 people doesn't make a general trend, as a nerd you should know that.
And btw I've never switched to sc2 so your impulsive claims are even weirder
Here from the Artosis SSL shout out. Well said!
That's pretty much it. I will say that what granularity adds on the table
is some thresholds which when people reach them, lower level players lose instantaneously. If you can defend your wood and you are stuck in AOE2, it's very hard to make a comeback vs someone that would harras you effectively, same in broodwar. If you are slow in building your turrets vs zerg (even if they go lurkers) it's game over. So as a player you know you've reached a timing threshold and that makes you feel good. The less the granularity, the less thresholds of automatic wins / automatic losses there are.
Glad that you are enjoying AoE2 as well right now
sc1 gets harder to play as you expand and take more bases which creates a self balancing effect per game. SC2 doesn't have that, hence you get deathballs.
I do t really see the whole deathball thing. Not since wings of liberty anyway where Colossus did like 20 damage to everything and people hadn't figured out EMP yet and high Templar warped in with storms. Or when broodlord investor was just so overpowered thanks to fungals being effectively a hitscan attack that decimated marines and Thors back then decided pissing on the opponent was effective anti air. The game is a lot better now than it was back then. The big deathballs now only happen when the game can even reach the late stage and it's late stage is more about positioning, spellcaster use, and countering your opponent over making the late game unstoppable op composition.
this so much this, sc2 late game basically boils down to you win the first large battle the opponent cant do anything because it snowballs. in broodwar you can use defence and choke points to get back in the game, making defense and siege important in broodwar unlike in sc2 where its just large army a moves into base and its over
@@soldier22881 maybe in lower leagues you can do that. But taking a bad fight by trying to shove in a fortified position is a good way to toss away your advantage.
There are lots of things i like about sc1, but units not doing what you tell them to do is not a feature, it's a bug. When units can't go up stairs, or decide to path the opposite way etc that doesn't add anything. Some people saying it is better because it requires more micro just to walk in a straight line is pure cope. The good micro is when you increase the efficiency of your army with good positioning, cast spells well, etc. individually blinking stalkers are an example of good micro in a game. Having to tell a unit to go over there over and over and over again just to get them to actually do it is not good micro.
Also this pathfinding issue is a limitation of the technology of the time, not an intentional gameplay mechanic. There's a SC1 modder (necron or something like that) that has an excellent video on how SC1 pathfinding works with zones etc.
I think all you'd need to "fix" it is to have the units be about 50% less incompetent. Some of that jitteryness is quite important in how units interact with each other. They create weakpoints for you to manage and enemies to exploit. They reduce the effectiveness of splash damage a bit, they reduce the DPS density during attacking.
The bad pathfinding isn't even entirely an artifact of the time, it an artifact of things being changed at the last minute. Take a look at something like Warcraft 2. Despite being an older RTS than Starcraft by the same devs, the pathfinding is signficantly better, if not up to today's standards.
The approach to pathfinding all old RTS games used wasn't just good enough. In wc2 it is not good by modern standards. Adding extra bugs and weirdness onto something that fundamentally sucks didn't help.
@@pawelmurias wc2 had good enough pathfinding for its own environment. It would t hold up in a modern RTS but it worked well given all units had to move aligned with the grid and that all units were the same size being 1x1 for land units and I think 2x2 for naval or air units which moved on a separate grid from land units. The biggest issues with wc2 was just units not trying to get around obstacles they would just stop if a long enough section of trees or units were in the way as they couldn't push anything.
@@mwperk02 the not pushing other units around is why the warcraft 2 pathfinding fundamentally sucks. actually I made an RTS with more modern pathfinding and (some) warcraft 2 assets and you really could see the difference
Granularity is great and all, but I like it when telling your units what to do in a way they'll actually listen doesn't require you to become one of the top pro players
3:50 - Never saw a wrong statement in my entire life, finishing a SC 1 match and getting 15+ mmr felt like i fought for my life and was out of air, simply uncomfortable af. Winnin a SC 2 match and getting 15+ mmr felt like "yeah! That was nice".
You have to be a masochis to enjoy that,
Age 2 has some "sand" over it, but its way way way way better than what you have in SC 1 and more close to Age 4.
I think SC2 also deserves credit for having much more balanced unit rosters and greater build diversity, honestly - I'll admit that I haven't played Brood War directly, but from watching hundreds of casts, it feels like huge swathes of the unit roster just go completely unused most of the time. Look at Zerg for instance - BW Zerg just goes Muta 90%+ of the time, while SC2 Zerg can do many combinations of lings, banes, hydras, roaches, mutas, infestors, lurkers, nydus, etc. I feel like this is a better place for that "granularity" to emerge from - not from having workers that just don't mine, units that get confused going up ramps, etc.
This!
Most high level zergs in BW go for either muta, as you said, or some kind of hydra play, then transition into a defiler lategame with either ultralisks or lurkers. There's very little variety outside of that, maybe mass cracklings? You almost never see queens, guardians, devourers. So yeah, I agree that there is much more unit variety in SC2, and a lot more viable strategies with those units as a result, without needing to constantly fight the game itself, and that makes it a better game.
broodwar has 2 units that counter mass mutas that being corsair and Valkyries its on the players for not using those units against zerg
14 years of constant balance patching does do that
thats a good analysis, i like how smooth and precise the unit movement is, lots of ui improvements but it doesnt feel good playing it, sc2 feels like it just boils down to 1 large army a moving to victory because once you lose the first battle its over because how easy it is to rally units and the separate rally point for workers. Broodwar although clunky its designed on purpose, units dont move precisely which makes controlling a large army difficult, thus if you do lose the first major battle you have a chance to recover, every unit serves a purpose and strategy is what wins the game rather than giant clump of units like in sc2.
That is a nice explanation.
When i was playing SCBW, i felt there was always a chance to come back in a game. I dont feel that to the same level in SC2, if you get behind, its not as easy to get even again
Despite that, i think i like SC2 better, because of the control (units, selection etc). :)
The RTS genre will continue to remain dead for as long as game developers keep trying to "fix" the "problem" of managing resources, bases and unit production. By simplifying or outright removing those aspects of the genre, it has been pushed more towards micro/unit abilities.
But the thing is, Age of Empires 2 has a comprehensive back and forth of what beats and almost no active abilities on units. This makes microing your armies simpler and allows you to focus on the more nuanced resource gathering, base building and progression through the tech tree.
Granulation is indeed a factor, but I think where BW scores the most points compared to most RTS in general, is the army movement and selection.
The movement is less consistent and responsive, but a lot more organic and scuffly. It sacrificies fluidity of ultra precise micro for fluidity of units feeling like real soldiers with minds of their own. And the 12 unit selections naturally lead to less giant battles and instead more skrimishes, which most of us like a lot more bith to watch and to play.
That being said, BW can be incredibly infuriating to play. It is a slow buildup into a house of cards that can collapse if you breathe too hard. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the ladder wasn't in such a sorry state with its countless multi-account smurfs (on every league basically), hackers, glitch exploiters, trolls etc. forcing you to commit even more of your day before you actually play a game that scratches the right itch.
Very well articulated! For someone who didn't play too much of it, you really nailed it. Also AoE 2 rules.
As someone who played both games extensively, but more or less left SC1 behind when SC2 came out, I will say that the restrictions in the game is what is the most annoying about it. The 12 unit selection limit for example. The pathfinding is just crap, there's no other way to put it. Units constantly get stuck on terrain or on each other, they get in each other's way when you're trying to construct a building, and you hear Artosis complaining about this kind of thing all the time. It feels like half the APM you spend in SC1 is actually making your units do what you tell them to do, and needing to move small groups at once. Not to also mention that the majority of the ladder maps in SC1 are 4 player spawns, because early game cheese is so strong that 2 player spawn maps would be imbalanced. SC2 also has a larger unit variety, and more strategies that can be applied overall.
Nooo, that's granularity and profound game design! XD
totally agreed. this is what makes it really great to watch pro level sc1. you can truly appreciate the skill it takes just to do basic army control while still macroing...however, you could argue the opposite. like, why is it interesting to watch players use so much APM fighting the game engine? wouldnt you rather see their APM going towards decision making or in playing a game that just works? where as battle aces went the opposite direction in taking sc2 and whittling it down to bare bones. id really love someone to do the opposite. take sc2 and make it as hard as sc1 but for all the right reasons and not because you need to work with broken pathing, unit AI, 12 units in control group, etc...
The ease of play of sc2 is nice but i cant be invested in it when its suffering from poor unit design and clumping of armies in the lategame
great response
Also the baneling is just a dumb unit. Queens defending everything early on. and banes f2ing into armies makes the battles not that interesting. Lotta sc2 massive battles last 3 seconds
That's why I always loved SCBW pro scene, but never actually liked SC2, except the campaign.
i hate sand. it gets everywhere.
Artosis would be proud
I love starcraft 2 but i feel like zerg is kinda broken. Having only 3-5 production buildings all on 1 hotkey, auto rally for workers, F2 button with inlimited selection, creep and mass queens, kinda feels meh. Ovis just always getting the scout on pillars. Can have the same opening for all 3 matchups. I love sc2 but it feels cheap mechanically sometimes. Zerg is just too strong imo
The player base will be wider due to less granularity. I never played sc2 even though I grew up with it. Every time I tried, I got bored with the nonsense busybody micro. This was before the starting drone increase
SC1 is great, it's hard for me to deal with the pathing though. AoE2 pathing is already annoying enough but I grew up with that. SC2 is still my favorite game for meta, only 3 factions is part of that. AoE4 though is what I've been gravitating to. It's not perfect but it's far more interesting to me meta wise that Aoe2. I like how fast siege sets up, it makes things engaging in a way SC traditional was. I've often not enjoyed micro in Aoe2, but 4 takes solid influence from SC.
The pathing in AoE 2 also improved over the years massively, especially with DE. Same with the QoL features. Dunno why, but the AoE 2 community is much less puritarian about this than BroodWar
I really wanted to get into AoE4, but the feeling like my units were walking through mud and had turning radius like trucks was too much for me.
@@ottokarl5427 I own AoE2 HD but not DE yet, I'll have to try it. I think Age finally getting proper competitive support goes a long way to sneaking in improvements, the change is already happening. BW has iconic history based around micro that overcomes pathing. It might invalidate too much of the games history to make changes.
@@app2530 I guess it depends on the unit, but I'm sure you'd acclimate if you gave it more time. I feel stuff moves pretty quick and snappy, of course some maps are just large large. For slow things like siege your supposed to navigate those behind your lines so there is a more deliberate commitment to how you use them. They'll feel less slow if you focus on the fast moving front line and take a more relaxed approach to the back line.
@@UberOcelot The AoE 2 community really never was too hung up over getting QoL features for their game. For example, just with the last big patch, we got Load-In Support, meaning it has become much easier to get units into Siege or Transporters (it now function as it does in SC2 essentially).
Before that though, there was a bit of a debate about a new feature: They implemented the Farm-Placement-Mechanic from AoE 4, meaning you can quick-place farms around a Mill now. Some players argued that this was a step too far in the automization of the game, though even the GOAT himself said it was fine, so the debate settled down rather quickly.
So, you have your X APM. Which would you prefer it being spent on:
a) managing 2-3 harass points, constantly scouting, manuvering and carefully arranging and positioning the main army, while occasionally pressing buttons to sustain eco, production and upgrades;
b) constantly clicking each individual production facility and each new unit, so that it would start doing something, while trying desperately to have your army (that acts like a brainless clump of stuff) not disperse or walk head first into opponents firing range and occasionally dropping a mineral line in a mostly "fire and forget" manner?
Which main showdown is more interesting to both play and watch:
a) where you control almost every single unit or, at least, small groups of units to constantly outposition, outmanuever and outmicro your opponent, so your army looks almost like every unit has a mind of its own;
b) where you desperately try to get units to do what you want instead of some weird stuff, prevent them from mixing up and a whole thing degrading into a total chaos?
I loved BW with all its quirks, but calling a choice of "which chore am I going to do, so that my eco and army dont fall apart simultaneously" a good, meaningful choice is pure copium and nostalgia. The choises that come from jankiness of in-game systems are an artificial complexity. They are not nearly as fun to make, act out and watch, as the choices that are related to an actual strategy or at least tactics. They are not what you want your players' and spectators' attention to be spent on. Asking for more "strategic" choises instead of "click this button 10 times to do a menial task" in a real time (!)strategy game, just wow, I know.
Also, sense of pride and achievement in RTS games comes first and foremost from outsmarting your opponent. If you want it to come from managing to mindnumbingly repeatedly click every prod building and new unit ... then maybe just tapping a hamster with leaderboards attached will do the trick better?
Iloveoov was a fantastic player, but I'd rather watch MMA's games.
I think its unfair to say sc1 is chess and sc2 is checkers but i think its a little bit like that. Since there more potential mistakes to be made, there is more complexity to the game.
Sc2 is checkers, but sc1 is also checkers except you are playing it while riding on top of a camel, balancing the checkerboard on top of the hump, and the camel is on an airplane going through turbulence and you’re also the airplane pilot
As Scarlett says, sc1 having a lot more engagements and battles throughout the game and all over the map makes it more strategic
SC1 you could have epic games that go on for really long time and the battles themselves lasted a lot longer as the counters were no where near as severe.
Also SC1 gave the defenders a more realistic advantage that added to this. The high ground mechanic in SC2 is terrible.
In sc2 you have no advantage of the high ground apart from vision which is ridiculous.
The loss of the Arbiter was basically like removing the ghost from the terran race.
The Arbiter is at the heart of almost all Protoss SC1 strategies.
The medivac is an insanely stupid idea and made terran bio too powerful.
sc1 one/two base all ins would be much stronger with medics instead of drop ships with heal, as you need a starport to make medivacs, unless they made medics require a tech lab, then yeah bio would be dead. So either way, you make them much stronger early and useless late (like they are in sc1) or useful all game, which is what they went with.
@@vexienroe Do note that Bio is still very useful lategame against Zerg, the SK Terran style where you snipe Defilers and Lurkers with Vessels, and DPS down everything else with Marine/Firebat/Medic. The real problem making them unviable against Protoss and Terran is splash damage. Reavers absolutely clown on Bio, nobody has the APM to dodge every single Scrab shot, and T doesn't have the production speed and eco of Zerg to compensate. For fighting T, Vultures can kill an almost infinite number of Marines, and Siege Tanks make it basically impossible for Marines to get close.
You see this in SC2 TvT too, long Siege lines make it practically impossible for Marines to exist.
In SC2 PvT, Collossi can't deal with Marauders, and are easily taken out by Vikings or Ravens. ZvT, Lurkers can get taken out by Snipe, Banelings are _mostly_ managable, though production rates are a bit better in SC2.
@@Appletank8 sc2 has banelings and aoe ultras. So the only match-up you think they are used in would not be used.
Plus in sc2 lots of people use bio against tanks
@@vexienroe Aren't Ultras in SC2 kinda regularly clowned on by Ghosts?
@@Appletank8 Yes but without medivacs ghosts would also be worse. and most people don't include ghosts in bio.
The depth that comes from having to deal with garbage controls is not the kind of depth I can enjoy. It just annoys the shit out of me. Maybe if I had a PC when I was little and would've gotten into SCBW when I was a kid I would think differently, but I got into RTS when SC 2 was already about 7-8 years old, so no chance of going back now.
It is the same difference as the one between C and Python.
If SC1 is more unique because it's less user-friendly compared to SC2 then I don't see that as a positive. I like both games and I bought SC1 remastered but the controls in SC2 are just so smooth that I'll always favor it over SC1. But the story in SC1 is better, especially at the point when all of a sudden you play Zerg for the first time right after Kerrigan got abandoned. I do like the SC2 campaign as well though, especially WoL because Terrans are the only funny race. Given that the story-telling is handicapped by requiring constant battles that have to stay entertaining and diversified while also slowly introducing new units they did a great job in both games.
Yeah, I loved only being able to select 12 units at a time and having what should be a 2 step process be a 6 step process. So fun, guys. It's granular.
Sorry, but having grown up with BW, SC2 is the superior game when it comes to gameplay. BW beats SC2 on story and atmosphere, and that's why BW is so beloved today, not because Artosis is addicted to the ladder.
stops balls of death with cheap units doesn't it though.
@@MrStevegibb I recall that the Zerg rush was invented in SC1, not SC2. In fact, being overrun by a ball of death of cheap units was kind of a rite of passage.
"Should be". Maybe unit production in SC2 should be a toggle as well instead of pressing the button every 10~15 seconds? Or maybe that would just be a fundamentally different game.
@@eduardoserpa1682 Idk maybe. There are mods that let you toggle on auto-build marines and SCVs until saturated. It still felt like the same game fundamentally to me.
At the very least, plenty of games have lots of depth for micromanaging while still allowing options for some level of automation so you can focus on bigger things, and they're no less for it. 4X games come to mind.
@@Suprentus Only really early on when people barely knew what they're doing, and 4 pools did actually get nerfed. Spawning Pools got a +50 in mineral cost. Most of the time any amount of defense will stop 4 pools from working due to a complete lack of eco to keep them going. They do still happen though, because greed play is always a thing, and a rush attack is its perfect counter, but it's very rare to see someone try for it. Both sides basically have to play blindly for it to work, the defender makes an early expansion without making a single defensive unit on the assumption their opponent stays home. The rusher doesn't make any eco on the assumption that they will win the game in the next 5 minutes. If it doesn't work, it's an instant GG.
I think the idea of having the challenge of a game come from unintentional horribly coded / broken / glitchy features is pretty interesting. It's like pure annoyance / difficulty for difficulties sake rather than for a purposeful reason. Like if u just added all kinds of RNG glitches SC2 (like every once in a while, a worker would just walk away from mining) or every once in a while your unit chooses to walk backward instead of forward, people would lose their mind and say the game is trash but if u have all those dumb bugs and glitches unintentionallly, then it's just part of the "art" or "craft" of playing the game.
Kind of reminds me of a musical instrument like piano vs trumpet. On piano everything just works - you press a key and it makes a perfect sound. On trumpet, you need to spend years getting to the point where any individual note you play actually sounds good. People say thats the beauty of a wind instrument and if on piano they made it so that you had to hit the key in an extremely precise way just to make the note resonate well, people would hate it.
So it feels like it's almost impossible for a modern game (piano) to compete with these old broken games challenging ass games (trumpet).
No difference. Both can be played when I'm drunk
The biggest difference is that BW was released during childhood and SC2 was released during early adulthood.
So SC2 with a 10 apm limit would be even better.
_SC1_ is not more granular than _SC2._ Granularity is about the level of complexity, variety of options, and fineness of control. Making it more difficult to perform the exact same task increases none of those things. It just makes the game more mechanical.
Frankly, _SC1_ is a bit like _Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy._ Its clumsy controls don't actually increase the difficulty; they just reduce expectations.
that's 1 positive about BW but there are multiple draw backs to it which makes SC2 the superior game in the big picture. and im someone who grew up playing BW..
I'm so early god damn
The biggest difference is being able to select more than 12 damn units on a group or whatever stupid number it was
I couldn’t care less..
Evo hype train is out of order anyway
biggest difference between sc and sc2 is that, in sc you fight the game, in sc2 you fight the opponent.