SC1 vs SC2 - Which has more STRATEGY?

[@TankieBoi]

Starcraft 2: Fight opponent Starcraft BW: Fight game and opponent

[@AntiDoctor-cx2jd]

exactly, and fighting the game is half the battle and it's not a strategy half.

[@anatolytsinker5317]

And lose to both

[@gosu1989]

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?

[@esosic]

people who talk about fighting the game don't actually play broodwar

[@anatolytsinker5317]

@@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’.

[@bones602]

Brood war there’s a boatload of strategy involved… “how can I move a dragoon up a ramp” for starters

[@atifarshad7624]

@@bones602 lol

[@FirstPersonLife]

as a casual returning to both games, brood war is infinitely more entertaining to watch

[@alexfriedman2152]

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.

[@MattMarshallUK]

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.

[@alexfriedman2152]

@@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.

[@whitneysmiltank]

@@alexfriedman2152 Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[@atifarshad7624]

@@FirstPersonLife and SC2 is infinitely more fun to play, for me atleast.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

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.

[@whitneysmiltank]

Well said. That's what I think too.

[@thecurbdog123]

Well said

[@JKnksrsly]

you can't play air as terran. you can't play bio vs protoss. 5 second checkmate

[@nightmareTomek]

I'm always saying, in SC2 the whole deathball can move through nearly every pathway on any map (the sole exception being the main bases), so it becomes a numbers game when deathball meets deathball. This is also why players often say that map design doesn't matter, they play all the same. The units are so tightly packed they clip into each other. It's not just ugly, it has a huge impact on how the game is played.

[@nightmareTomek]

@@JKnksrsly you mean you can't play mech vs Protoss, right? In SC2 of course. And what air, mass BCs? You can do that in BW as much as SC2. Did you checkmate yourself there?

[@OpenhandMM]

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.

[@andrewferguson6901]

Good time to bring up the difference between strategy and tactics

[@Norrieification]

⁠@@andrewferguson6901that was my thought exactly. Of course tactics will be important with longer time to kill and more mechanics.

[@nightmareTomek]

BW has different build orders and openings, in SC2 I saw only one per matchup since 2017. In BW fights are for control over the map, and more commited. In SC2 fights are always pokes that immediately run away when enemy is there to defend, and they poke 1000x per match. It's so much not even close that I don't get how blind someone must be to think SC2 is more strategic.

[@keizan5132]

​@@nightmareTomekthe fuck I just read, lmao.

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

elaborate

[@skennel8884]

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.

[@aloe7794]

Yeah that's what annoys me about SC2 (and that's coming from someone who adors the game bc of nostalgia), people there have just gotten used to the fact that complaining enough is going to change things for them While in Brood War, there's no such thing and the beauty is that you can figure out stuff on your own as the games go while the units stay the same

[@Entrophius]

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.

[@daPawlak]

There is more "chosing a strategy" in SC2 while in SC1 there is more "strategizing your attention" IMO

[@shaggyfeng9110]

Nicely put. SC1 is like real world competition, you do not get to control the world around you, but just your attention.

[@EB-bl6cc]

Yep. How do you want to spend your APM, since a human can't produce enough APM to do everything in BW

[@markmuller7962]

Scarlett Quote: "Sc1 has more strategy because there are smaller fights (and few big ones) all game long and all over the map so it takes many decisions throughout the game in contrast with SC2 building towards that single fight that often ends the game"

[@pie2these]

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.

[@StarCraftExplained]

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

[@ChessJourneyman]

So you've been sucking at sc forever and enjoy the noob-friendly sc2, obv.

[@StarCraftExplained]

@@ChessJourneyman yeah probably. Should I feel bad for doing something I enjoy? Lmao

[@FlameQwert]

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)

[@JohnDoe-l4d9h]

You have the same concept in sc2 with multiprong harass pulling away attention

[@raglock1433]

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

[@FlameQwert]

@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

[@benismann]

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..

[@markmuller7962]

Scarlett Quote: "Sc1 has more strategy because there are smaller fights (and few big ones) all game long and all over the map so it takes many decisions throughout the game in contrast with SC2 building towards that single fight that often ends the game"

[@calumwainwright5455]

Would you say Light is mechanically a monster and is weaker strategically, and that’s holding him back a bit?

[@MostInsaneBuilds]

next tournament flash will show up with two keyboards to macro even better.

[@monkeyaround2066]

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.

[@helljumper_]

Love these type of videos. Your insight into game mechanics/strategy and theory is always a pleasure to listen to.

[@haze3880]

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.

[@nightmareTomek]

I would also say they don't like it because you can't make up a-b-c with any b-c-d-e-f-g. A is mechanics and trumps everything. And SC2 TvsZs are generally very looooooooong.

[@ManCubuSSC]

BW has a tons of strategies but main difference about it is you can try a build order from 2001 and it still works, many players memorized and even now remember them. Now tell me a build order from SC2 that you remember and if it will work today - no chance because game has patched into oblivion.

[@stefanc4520]

Broodwar is timeless❤

[@SPAMMAN123456789]

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.

[@Glaedr11]

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?

[@hallo-mt5tx]

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

[@kohp]

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.

[@ShirpaTheShirpa]

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.

[@johnnovak6386]

The fact I understood "That infinitely is harder" not only made me laugh out loud but also appreciate your opinion on all of it... as if I wouldn't have any way. Love these kind of videos.

[@origon4477]

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

[@AustinKay]

There's more to it than that

[@nightmareTomek]

There's definitely more to it than that. I bet even with being able to select multiple buildings and any amount of units BW would still be more strategic than SC2. One aspect for example is how much units clump up in SC2. Sure you can argue in BW they don't because of the engine, but in SC2 it was a design decision. In no other RTS units clip so much into each other like in SC2. The most impactful result isn't that stuff dies to storm more easily, but that a whole deathball can fit through nearly every pathway on the map and close the distance to enemies all at once as well. This has a HUGE impact and not a good one, it makes SC2 into a numbers game. In BW units always only trickle in when attacking.

[@bloodbathfan]

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.

[@TheFIRESTARX]

Automine is not training wheels, it’s basic quality of life lmfao.

[@atifarshad7624]

​@@TheFIRESTARXyeah. Especially since stuff like auto mining and more than 12 units selection were already common in RTS around thar time.

[@AlainPaquetteRevolution]

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.

[@JohnDoe-l4d9h]

A factor you didn’t bring up is that the patches in starcraft 2 means pros have to adjust strategies whenever things are changed

[@VittamarFasuthAkbin]

good point

[@georgehelyar]

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.

[@bentybursky858]

You should try Cosmonarchy. It greatly improves BW pathing and other QoL things

[@atifarshad7624]

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.

[@Euniceiscool]

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.

[@Moeron86]

As someone who's played starcraft off and on starting way before broodwar even, the original has sc2 beaten by a mile. Sc2 is now more of a twitch clicker in my opinion due to the starting worker count being. So high

[@BinxyBrown]

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

[@facundosoler2200]

Love these reflective videos Arty !

[@tvlyt456]

The clunkiness of broodwar adds to the skill and entertainment factor. Minion blocking, awkward targetting, fked up ai, pathing … it is kinda funny to watch and this is also why micro is so much of it.

[@xDARKSHADEx]

My brain is smooth and Star Craft 2 looks prettier

[@bernkbestgirl]

I am not a SC2 hater, it's a fine game but I genuinely think SC1 remastered looks better

[@graxthal]

@@bernkbestgirlyeah sc1 is more tasteful looking

[@ghost-user559]

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.

[@MLO860.]

RTSs that have detailed and elaborate graphics make it tougher to see what is going on.

[@sakesaurus]

brood war graphics are gorgeous.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

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.

[@firestarter000001]

This is untrue for years. Just the serie i watched recently , Astrea vs Shin on pigs channel. Where is this 1 fight you speak about?

[@GHOST445-ej4on]

Positioning is everything in sc2 all the best players have incredible movement sc2 is so hard at the pro level as you have to be perfect the entire time or you lose your entire army in 0.2 seconds it’s just that unforgiving and difficult not to mention that your probably thinking off 1 big army battle and that’s the game which has been untrue for like half a decade at this point so many pro games there’s a ungodly amount of multitasking and achieves stuff that sc1 can’t as the engine is terrible

[@NotTheWheel]

Iunno as a Spectator BW has always felt more cerebral where as SC2 is more like my Giant Death ball beats your Giant Death Ball.

[@yyyy-uv3po]

One crucial difference is the high ground advantage. It gives raise to positional strategies, a serious defender advantage, and different play styles depending on the map. Choke points as well, as they are harder to cross. And of course units selection limit gives extended battles unlike the infamous SC2 blobs annihilation. At least from a user perspective, BW seems more deep than SC2, where it feels like it's essentially a matter units composition.

[@Clarity-808]

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]

Every sc2 game is the same

[@origon4477]

@@anatolytsinker5317 Ladder would tell you differently

[@firestarter000001]

@@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?

[@anatolytsinker5317]

@@firestarter000001 so I watched the first game. The guy who deviated from the standard macro till the sun comes up meta got destroyed. Not sure if that’s the best evidence for your point

[@firestarter000001]

@@anatolytsinker5317 As Pig said repeatedly in the commentary, Shins less orthodox plays earn him victories all the time. Your argument was that each sc2 game looks the same. I took this randoms erie i just watched to show you its untrue, as game 1 differs from game 2.

[@KY-qy3kn]

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.

[@garrettwilson4754]

It's the bandwidth/bitrate issue; in BW you spend more runtime on things that are automated in SC2. Probably why team control is a thing

[@lonksnek]

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.

[@DoktorNaibmys]

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...

[@james-k7o9b]

It’s a thrill for me to figure out what art means at the same time as art

[@ProGamingProphecy]

I wish SC1 would update and allow us to hotkey multiple buildings. Personally, for me, I play both games, and even though I enjoy both, I play SCBW way more.

[@RandomGuy-ghs]

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.

[@CheeseChuckie]

No one noticed the chat about Infested Kerrigan, huh? xD

[@ares106]

Has anyone considered that slowing the game speed would lead to more interesting strategic decision and it would be less mechanically taxing.

[@hansonlee5847]

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

[@the2ndmask]

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.

[@TheSlithice]

The strategy in chess is just so next level its mind blowing. You : Nah dont believe you, I'll stick to checkers.

[@the2ndmask]

@TheSlithice I think you can give an example even for chess.

[@BingusBiggums]

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.

[@blas_de_lezo7375]

And yet, recent Clem's games vs serral feel a lot about INCREDIBLE micro of marines.

[@BlackDiamond2718]

I would assume 1. 2 seems more like throwing your army at your enemies.

[@MoonyD911]

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.

[@USALibertarian]

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.

[@Doombacon]

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.

[@johannparedes8359]

Artosis what is your opinion on age of empires 2?

[@whynow4306]

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...

[@floriancazacu4504]

Any time you look at a situation and think "Oh, I know exactly what the player should've done here", that is a failure for a real-time strategy game. The whole point of real-time is you have way more limited resources than the correct response, therefore what you prioritize doing IS the strategy. Whenever macro/micro/economy/etc. becomes easier to DO, there is less competition for attention, and that exposes the limitations of the game, rather than the limitations of the player. Because I can't individually control 100 zerglings the way I want them to move, then each time I engage in a fight with 100 zerglings they will behave pseudo-randomly, which creates opportunities for the other player to take advantage of my limitation. Just the same he can't control 50 marines simultaneously, so I can also take advantage of his limitations. And that creates drama because it exposes player limitations. If I can group all my 100 zerglings well enough that I can make them move as I want, then it exposes limitations of the game, and not of the player. THAT is why in SC2 they cannot find balance, because every change streamlines the process of doing, which exposes more of the game limitations, and that's why it's less entertaining. (Might be more accurate if strategy games were called tactical games but that's another story.)

[@michaelpopa5317]

I started watching SC2 again after KZbin 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

[@firestarter000001]

As I understand him, to my surprise, i think i actually agree with Artosis. Both games have more or less same level of strategy, but in sc2 there is more room to show it, as players have to spend less apm/effort on mechanics.

[@autosativa]

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

[@Caccac40]

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.

[@stuartdalrymple]

As a casual BW and SC2 player, there was nothing more scary then the start of a BW game. Like you have no idea what's happening and could die to a rush at any second. SC2 always felt safer in the early game.

[@charlesimsande2822]

Artosis is pretty cool.I'll give it to him.I wouldn't mind playing a 4vs4 with him.

[@FourOneNineOneFourOne]

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.

[@danji420]

I think the question is wrong here. It should really be ‘in which game does strategy matter more?’ Both games are strategic in their own way and you could argue the case for either. But I feel strategy matters more in sc2 given the lesser demands on things like mechanics, micro, unit pathing and RNG.

[@SpeedyBozar]

RTS is like having a slave that does all the clicking for you while you are just making judgment of what strategy to do and where your attention and clicking goes unfortunately you are also the slave

[@natecw4164]

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.

[@9365fall]

A large part of it is unit pathing is horrible in brood war. If you were to fix it, it would be an entirely different game.

[@toomuchcheeze6598]

Lol like we don't already know exactly what artosis is going to say.

[@stagedgames5195]

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.

[@TowerSavant]

I should look at some more SC Evo games that are just BW vs BW. Feels like that mod would illuminate the topic more.

[@LearnedSome]

That was very insightful.

[@JuglarEuskaldun]

Sc1 is the qwop of rts.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

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 :-)

[@ManCubuSSC]

If it was that easy all champions would be protoss but they're most underperforming race.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

@ManCubuSSC if I were you, I'd ask Artosis for his opinion on that topic :-)

[@Weed_Ghost]

Tasteless passion CONFIRMED

[@Figgy20000]

Sc1: Consistant APM over a long time Sc2: Reaction Speed and burst APM

[@notevenbefore]

Sc1: Consistent APM over a long time, reaction Speed and Burst APM Sc2: don't know didn't watch

[@GenePerry]

Points

[@CoreySchulz-x5z]

Why even comment on a video comparing two games when I you know nothing about one of them

[@Figgy20000]

@@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

[@captain_malaria]

​@@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!

[@pricklypear6298]

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

[@sambobly]

Attention is definitely a resource in sc2.

[@afos88]

@@sambobly it's not the same kind

[@JohnDoe-l4d9h]

lol mechanics/attention is a missing dimension in sc2? This has to be bait

[@TheFIRESTARX]

@@JohnDoe-l4d9hthese people clearly don’t actually play and just listen to people talk and repeat opinions. Absolutely absurd talking points.

[@JohnDoe-l4d9h]

@@TheFIRESTARX exactly, it’s gonna Be a very biased topic in this channel

[@redfiend]

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.

[@ArtosisTV]

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.

[@redfiend]

@@ArtosisTV You have a lifetime experience in this, so I'll defer to your expert opinion on this one. Anyway, Merry Christmas man, hope to see more of your work next year. )

[@FlymanMS]

I appreciate SC 1 built in jankyness.

[@joukeronex7083]

that hat hiding a big ass hair loss

[@joshnaggs9851]

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.

[@nightmareTomek]

As far as engagements go, in SC2 attacks mostly consist of poking and retreating when it's defended well enough, and repeating this 1000 times throughout the match. You CANNOT tell me this is in any shape or form strategic. What I see in BW are players positioning their units to gain control over the map, this simply doesn't have any value in SC2. It might be easier in SC2 to focus on strategy, but then again playing anything but meta puts you miles behind. This has gotten worse with Legacy of the Void and I would guess it's due to the explosive economy, the 12 worker start and main buildings being basically 100 minerals cheaper by giving 8 more supply than before LotV.

[@AlacrityTW]

SC2 strategies change with the meta of balance patches. BW meta is more or less set.

[@adizergu]

in brood war he who makes less mistakes wins

[@prowpresser896]

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.

[@nname8100]

Just pause the stream for ten minutes and make this video.

[@inexplicable01]

Sc has more strategy because and only because they decide to play sc2 at a higher speed.

[@ChessJourneyman]

SC2 is SCBW with training wheels.

[@bartonfang]

Should talk about what is strategy before even comparing what game is more strategic. RTS is strategic not because of game design but because of people's variation in how many things they can do within a set amount of time.SC1 is strategic in that the game itself is so mechanically heavy, so players have to invest that apm wisely and effectively; sc2 the mechanics are easier which allows more control for more units raising the cap of how much you can do within a set time. This is not apples to apples comparison. It is like saying life is very strategic, yet you start in a village in fuck nowhere Africa vs someone born into a doctor family in Germany; there is no comparison to it.

[@megaslayercho]

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.

[@atifarshad7624]

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.

[@michalnebesky791]

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.

[@GHOST445-ej4on]

Yes sc2 is extremely hard I think there’s more strategy than you think but it’s more like 1000 small things that only pros pick up on I learn this stuff watching harstems streams but things popping out 3 seconds earlier or skipping some small or just positioning a unit in an area faster can have some strange butterfly effect so the “strategy” is much more nuanced overall I love sc2 due to the dance/ tug of war between players it’s become so skill full like you said 20-30 minute slug fest of nothing but fights

[@zaftnotameni]

lol how's that even a question... SC II since the stupid 12 worker update is 100% execution, zero strategy, zero thought involved

[@WhitePum4]

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.

[@gongal]

Starcraft BW: Strategy Starcraft 2: Blob

[@jahile]

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.

[@Jruee]

Played for like 20 years as a zerg who sucks at macro and is pretty darn good at micro. Still bounce between diamond and masters. Should be a toss... SC 2 definitely has more strategy in my opinion. Love both games though.

[@kylemadison1296]

SC2 is infinitely more strategic. In broodwar terran and zerg just sit there and protoss just flies over turrets with arbiters. What is strategic about that?

[@foberdud7576]

@2:13 the most important part of this video Ur welcome 👍

[@cosmicfox5671]

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.

[@BauerPower4]

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

[@GHOST445-ej4on]

It’s amazing to see how every sc1 fan knows absolutely nothing about sc2 anymore and makes up some bs points about how sc1 is like infinity harder than the other and sc2 is like baby mode it’s so dumb ,I even agree that sc1 probably has more strategy than sc2 but the blatant slander from sc1 fanboys who wouldn’t even make gold in sc2 is just insane