SC1 vs SC2 - Which has more STRATEGY?

[@bones602]

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

[@atifarshad7624]

@@bones602 lol

[@mistervanderveer]

How to actually make building in the first place

[@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.

[@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’.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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

[@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"

[@mvpmvp2980]

theres way more player expression in brood war. Player A can have a vastly different approach to matchups than player B, but both will still be competitive with each other. sc2 everyone does the same stuff.

[@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

[@Zraknul]

Variation in maps in BW also changes the strategies that work there.

[@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.

[@Olagfigh]

Hotkey multiple buildings with fixing pathfinding and SC1 would be again most popular RTS game

[@Zraknul]

@@Olagfigh There could be a happy medium in pathfinding. BW has units get interfered with and they want to go on an epic quest to other side of the planet to get around. SC2 meanwhile everything flows past each other far too smooth. It's like every unit in the game is covered in lube, there's zero friction.

[@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.

[@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"

[@helljumper_]

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

[@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.

[@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.)

[@MostInsaneBuilds]

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

[@NICUofficial]

@@ChessJourneyman we'll look forward to your SSL appearance any day now

[@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.

[@gruchenstein9163]

i think that sc2 is just faster, less units more spamming less counters that means that there will be less decisions that matter so all of these decisions might be gamechanging if you do someting wrong

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@stefanc4520]

Broodwar is timeless❤

[@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.

[@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.

[@110jmartin011]

I saw the tiltle at fisrt as "which one is the bigger tragedgy" and I got so freaking excited.. then I blinked a couple times, re read it, and let out a sigh of disapointment.

[@calumwainwright5455]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@CheeseChuckie]

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

[@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

[@dionepon]

I wonder how a modded version of broodwar would play if you would enable bigger control groups, multiple building groups, auto mining workers and more modern quality of life changes while keeping the rest of the game how it originally is

[@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.

[@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.

[@sch3l3]

Art style , story , music and atmosphere definitely on the brood war side

[@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.

[@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?

[@facundosoler2200]

Love these reflective videos Arty !

[@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...

[@BioReptiles]

Part of the strategic aspect of BW is how a player needs to decide how much amount of apm to dedicate a certain unit or set of units during a specific part of the game. If a player dedicates apm to micro, his macro can suffer way waay more in a very small amount of time, compared to sc2.

[@james-k7o9b]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@JCMiniPainting]

I enjoy them both for their own merits and avoid worrying about differences that would impact said enjoyment.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@ares106]

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

[@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

[@BlackDiamond2718]

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

[@dvaritek434]

Somewhere, tasteless is punching the air in celebration about being right

[@Weed_Ghost]

Tasteless passion CONFIRMED

[@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.

[@LearnedSome]

That was very insightful.

[@charlesimsande2822]

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

[@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!

[@toomuchcheeze6598]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@inexplicable01]

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

[@xardiodrack1798]

i find as a viewer that the biggest difference in strategy is early game i find that sc2 is way less intresting in that part of the game with a clear lack of build diversity in early game than brood war in my opinion mainly because of high early eco + only 2 players map reduce the possible build and mind game available

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@gongal]

Starcraft BW: Strategy Starcraft 2: Blob

[@TheKiest]

I’ve always said current BW meta/strategy has more breadth while Sc2 has more depth. (what Artosis meant by “more infinite” I think) If BW mechanics were easier (not 100% dumbed down) and maps were more consistent (sc2 maps are very formulaic/similar), it could hit the same depth as sc2. Both are have potential infinite depth and breadth, but I think the two scene’s goals make it seem like one game is over the other. Plus we don’t have either truly solved! (but many in both scenes talk like they do regarding this discussion) In other words, I’d argue if applied sc2 practices (simple macro, similar map pool variance) to BW, BW games would start to look like sc2 games. And if sc2 had BW mechanical limits/features with wider range of maps, sc2 games could look like more BW. I think this holds true even without balance patches/pathing issues. These mods could prove this: A BW mod where you can select up to 200 units, control group buildings, smart cast, start with 12 workers, and all maps are similar. (which probably exists in sc2) Vs An SC2 mod where you can only select 12, can’t group buildings, lower worker count, no smart casters, workers aren’t auto mining, and all maps are variably different. (not sure if this one exists)

[@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. )

[@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...

[@mistervanderveer]

SC2 has a much higher skill ceiling and micro matters more. Thats why the boomers have issues with SC2 since SCBW is much more forgiving if you dont have 600+ apm like Clem, Reynor, Maxpax and Serral. Besides that, SC2 is just a lot more entertaining from a viewers perspective. BW looks and feels so clunky and unresponsive and having to fight the game mechanics itself, which detracts from the strategic and tactical aspects. There's a reason SC2 still has huge tournaments (1.000.000 dollar one recently, sure its sportswashing but hey beggars like us cant be choosers).

[@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

[@FlymanMS]

I appreciate SC 1 built in jankyness.

[@JuglarEuskaldun]

Sc1 is the qwop of rts.

[@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.

[@AlacrityTW]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@adizergu]

in brood war he who makes less mistakes wins

[@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.

[@soju69jinro]

sc2 doesnt have early game, as you said... maybe lowering to 8 workers or 6 workers would be better.

[@johannparedes8359]

Artosis what is your opinion on age of empires 2?

[@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.

[@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.

[@ericd545]

Brood war players should NOT be allowed to have these types of conversations. We’re too broken and biased

[@GHOST445-ej4on]

Agreed as someone running damage control for sc2 here no broodwar fan seems to know what their talking about when it comes to sc2 just misinformation/ I made it the fuck up facts

[@4v3ngerRO]

Warcraft 3 is the beast RTS ever....

[@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.

[@nname8100]

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

[@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.

[@KuraiChanZ]

Not infinite, but I think you mean to say SC1 has a higher skill ceiling. There is basically perfect mechanics which no one in the world is even close to but theoretically there is. SC1 just has one of the highest skill ceilings of any game

[@illiberalautist2222]

It's infinite because theoretical perfect mechanics are physically impossible for a human to achieve.

[@benismann]

@@illiberalautist2222 and those exist in sc2 too. Literally just worker micro is already impossible to do

[@illiberalautist2222]

@@benismann wrong.

[@ixirion]

SC1 is more grand strategy but probably its cos the pace of the game is slower. A small mistake in SC2 may lead to doing so much dmg so fast thats hard to recover. from the other side a better micro and higher APM player can outdo much of the better strategy.

[@Mglunafh]

Let's make a small mistake of wandering with sc1 marines into the burrowed lurkers or storms or reavers and see how easy you can recover from that

[@benismann]

idk how that leads to that. The game is slowers, which means if you get behind early you'll be behind for longer and it will just take more time for you to die. Slower =/= comeback mechanics, it just means slower.

[@ixirion]

@@Mglunafh the slower speed is part of the why. Not the whole answer. For example other thing is that the army is more spread out so you tend to lose part of it. In sc2 you can lose 10 drones in 10 sec for example to an oracle and you are just so much behind. other thing that add more to the strategy is the 50% miss chance. thats huge defender advantage.

[@ixirion]

@@benismann its just not true. Slower means you have more time to assess and strategize. more time to back off from bad decision. Faster your reaction/APM matters much more.

[@Mglunafh]

@@ixirion storm drops, reaver drops in sc1 cripple mineral lines even faster than sc2 oracle so I'm not convinced in the "cost of the small mistakes" argument And "slower speed" in the case of storm drop means, once the psi-storm is casted, my drones will spend more time under it which deals more damage(sc1: 112 over 3sec vs. sc2: 80 over 2.86sec)