[haze]

[haze]

good gravy. not too long ago I had to put up with doofuses on BGG who claimed starcraft had no strategy whatsoever. apparently they had "solved" the game (1. rushing is an automatic win, 2. it doesn't matter what units you build)

the Tekken of RTS would hopefully have kangaroo marines, and breakdancing zealots. I'd buy it.

[haze]

the hostility towards competitive starcraft play is really interesting. that's not meant sarcastically, I've been thinking about the reactions in this thread.

I think Cuba hit it on the head, it's pretty much a fighting game. not literally, but especially in the skills required. and hey we have a 40-page discussion thread on fighters on this very forum, but not too many people complain about the "OMFG SERIOUS" types over there. fighting games depend as much (or as little) on memorizing combos and character matchups as starcraft is about APM and build orders, but the latter gets far more misconceptions.

maybe it's the online thing. being face to face with your opponent makes a big difference, and it's much easier to do that with fighters than Starcraft. online, it seems like the only way people can express themselves is with their win ratio, so many serious players get a little too serious about that. but on the other side of the screen, when you know nothing about your opponent, it's easy to assume the worst of them when they whip your ass, even if they didn't say anything. they're automatically a OMFG SERIOUS gamer. curiously, I've heard the same thing reported of boardgame players; in person they're the most polite people ever, and online they're usually huge jerks.


but I'm pretty sure the anonymity isn't everything. I have this one anecdote from many years ago, when playing Starcraft with some online friends. in one team game, half the players got dropped, so all that was left was me vs 2 others, and we decided to keep playing anyway. even outnumbered, I managed to crush their combined forces by constantly staying on the offensive. one of my opponents was impressed I managed to pull it off. the other got so disgusted at the defeat that he refused to ever play Starcraft again.

what turns people off of starcraft by a bad defeat more than a fighting game? they're completely different in a fundamental way. Fighters are basically a race for points. Get points by hitting the other guy more often than he can hit you; your character doesn't get tired at low health, and unlike Bushido Blade you can't break their legs and make them limp for the rest of the match. Starcraft is about building up and taking away. Each player takes time to build up their own little sandcastle, but the game can only end when one of the sandcastles are demolished. I think that this hits casual players much harder psychologically.

funny enough, this divide is much more obvious in the modern boardgame world. German boardgames are very often a race for points with no leg-breaking allowed, while American boardgames are usually about direct conflict and taking away from opponents. one of these genres is very popular among the "casual" players, while the other still has the stereotype of only being played by "serious" male geeks. guess which is which!


if you don't enjoy Starcraft because you're not good at it, that's fair enough. though I think anyone can get better at it, if you simply enjoy playing it and can tolerate the crappy defeats. you're gonna lose a lot of sandcastles.

[haze]

[haze]

wait, warcraft III was innovative?

because a couple fans created tower defense and dota in the map editor? both of which existed first in SC1 anyway

[haze]

Grim Grimoire was the BEST rts ever. Nothing else even COMPARES

[haze]