Starcraft 1 vs Starcraft 2

[Cthulhu]

Obviously, both games have pretty nice-looking graphics for their respective gaming eras, and the story-line is basically an unoriginal yet kick-ass jumble of sci-fi space adventure conventions. The focus of this poll is comparing gameplay mechanics and the overall satisfaction derived from playing the games: which installment did it right? Which was more fun to play?

 

[Malakal]

I had more fun with SC1. Story was jut about as stupid as in SC2 but at least it was complete and not split into 3 parts. Missions in SC2 had more variety but somehow I kept wondering if I will get to build anything this time maybe? You know since it a staple of rts games?

Besides SC1 was more kickass for its time. Really good atmosphere too.

 

[JohnTheRevelator]

Wouldn't agree with pretty graphics. SC looked meh to me even when it was new, probably has something to do with Total Annihilation. As for mechanics, both games bored me to death. Never managed to get through campaigns, tried like 3 times with SC1 and once with SC2. Mainly because gameplay simply isn't appealing to me and I always got bored halfway through. Feels too much like twitchy action game to me, no really, there is too much focus on apm and micro leet skillz retardation. Cap on number of units you can select, queues only up to 5 units etc. . Things like that are put in there just to keep you busy with unnecessary micro management instead of playing damn game. Don't mind me though, not a big fan of RTS's anyway. As far as poll goes I'd be inclined to vote for SCII since it isn't as stupidly restrictive with this stuff. Keep in mind that it doesn't mean I like the game.

 

[Cthulhu]

The only real problem with Starcraft was a horrendous pathfinding system. Units constantly getting stuck in passages, going in the opposite direction of the destination, arriving on the field of battle in a disorganized manner which made them difficult to maneuver and easy to shoot down. Other aspects are common to all Blizzard RTS series (well, both of them) - focusing on a smaller number of units and their skills, which eventually brought Blizzard-made strategies closer to the hack-and-slash genre (inappropriately called RPG). Makes sense, considering Diablo and World of Warcraft.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

SC2 lacked the (pardon me) grit and space-rowdy charm that made SC1 such an unforgetable experience.

SC2 is good, but by no means a classic.

 

[Zed]

In before attackfighter

I've played a lot more SC2 than I did SC1, but that was because I preferred the Warcraft universe at that time. I played red alert, wc2 and Z instead of SC1.

I watch the games more than I play them.
SC1 as a spectator esport is sadly slowly dying away though. But I enjoy watching SC2. Tomorrow, for example, there's a swede going up against a top Korean Terran in the ro8 of GSL (the premier league of SC2). To me, that's more exciting than, say, a game of football or hockey.

I recognize SC1 as the game requiring more skill etc., but I prefer SC2. (sad lone SC2 vote on poll )

 

[Average Manatee]

Is this with regards to single player or multi player? SC1 wins both of course, but the mechanics are quite a bit different between the two and there should be a common point of discussion.

 

[J1M]

SC2 really screwed the pooch in the storyline department. The missions, difficulty, and single-player achievements were quite fun though.

Making the character a disembodied ghost instead of an adviser really took the me out of the story. (not to mention all of the plot holes, inconsistencies, and putting a fucking prophecy in a sci-fi universe)

I still prefer SC1 for its charm. Too bad nobody listened to Aldaris.

 

[attackfighter]

Well at this point I feel like I'm redundant for my SC2 hate:p But regardless I'll throw in some of my thoughts on SC2.

- I miss the dragoon blood, tank 'splosions and the general satisfaction you get when you're killing stuff in SC1. SC2 is mild, perhaps even weak, in this department since the units don't explode in such an exaggerated manner, they don't leave as much in the way of corpses (no dragoon blood!) and the sounds accompanying unit actions are very dull.

- I'm bored when I'm not in a battle. There are no vultures to plant mines and the way the game pans out it tends towards having a small number of bases (relative to SC1) so there aren't as many locations to harass. Consequentially harassment usually isn't very common unless a player's build is geared specifically towards it. So without much in the way of harassment options and few pre-placed thingies like mines, tanks and lurkers, there isn't really much to do outside of battle except march your units around and posture. I guess Zerg has creep tumours.

- I find the micro rather repetitive. The micro is mostly simple, predetermined stuff that will pan out the exact same way every battle. Splitting your ball of units into an arc or mindlessly kiting with said ball of units, for example. In SC1 the micro is less clear-cut. Stuff like drone-drills or pulling your army away from a dark swarm is much more liable to happen in an interesting and unique fashion, than kiting in SC2. That's not to say all of SC2's micro is repetitive - there are a few aspects like Psi Storm that aren't - but there's much less of it than in SC1.

Also I've been watching one of GomTv's SC1 tournaments and bookmarking every exceptionally good game I come across. Figure I'll post some here in case anyone is interested.
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/732
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/657

 

[Cowboy Moment]

It's kind of like the original Deus Ex vs Human Revolution.

And as far as multiplayer goes, even though SC1 has a bunch of annoying UI restrictions, the gameplay itself is way more fun. Major parts of SC2 feel like they've intentionally been designed just to be frustrating as fuck. Also, the new Battle.net is shit, that doesn't help.

 

[Zed]

Battle.net 2.0 does 50% matchmaking relatively well, but everything else about it is shit.

 

[Average Manatee]

SC2 matchmaking good? It placed me in Bronze when I played diamond players for my placement matches and only lost one of them. Then it kept me playing mid level diamond players just for the lulz and I was still in bronze after 30 matches with an 80% win rate when I quit.

Even if it did work, if I'm playing I want to play players significantly better than me so that I can find ways to improve, not equal players where they do the exact same shit I do and the outcome is a 50/50 flip of a coin. Trying to continually match equal players like that simply breeds mediocrity.

 

[Renegen]

SC2 matchmaking good? It placed me in Bronze when I played diamond players for my placement matches and only lost one of them. Then it kept me playing mid level diamond players just for the lulz and I was still in bronze after 30 matches with an 80% win rate when I quit.

Even if it did work, if I'm playing I want to play players significantly better than me so that I can find ways to improve, not equal players where they do the exact same shit I do and the outcome is a 50/50 flip of a coin. Trying to continually match equal players like that simply breeds mediocrity.

And of course the high ranked players maybe don't want to play again you. So that's the problem with a system that makes the decisions for you. They should really just go with the chess ranking system, I've seen it work in other games and it's great.

To me, that's more exciting than, say, a game of football or hockey.

Playoff hockey is going on as we speak, nothing is more exciting than playoff hockey.

 

[Destroid]

The matchmaking is pretty solid I thought (in the beta anyway, I haven't played since), especially compared to the piece of shit matcher for Dawn of War 2.

 

[MaroonSkein]

Even if it did work, if I'm playing I want to play players significantly better than me so that I can find ways to improve, not equal players where they do the exact same shit I do and the outcome is a 50/50 flip of a coin. Trying to continually match equal players like that simply breeds mediocrity.

 

[attackfighter]

While the matchmaking isn't so bad itself, the problem I have with it is that there's no good alternative and no convenient way to reset your rank.This is a problem if you stop playing for a couple of months and then come back - your skills will have deteriorated but your ranking will have remained the same, meaning you will have to play against people way better than you until your skill and ranking equalize again. I agree that a way to choose your opponents would be incline; ideally the game would be a hybrid of SC1's customizable system and the SC2 matchmaking system.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

The matchmaking is fine as long as you abandon the notion of league ranking meaning anything. Your MMR is what counts, although there's obviously no way to see it, since that would upset all the newbies. Or at least that's what Blizzard thinks.

Also, Zed, how did you like today's super exciting games? Really great to see the best of the best duke it out, isn't it?

 

[Zed]

Cowboy Moment
One guy cheesing, the other one playing like crap... Yeah, great games

 

[Black]

I prefer fighting my opponents than clunky UI and retarded AI. SC2 it is.

 

[Kane]

starcraft 1 was good for what it was at it's time. game engines have evolved in the meantime however, and i think that games like company of heroes should be the standard in terms of depth. be that as it may, one can earn money by playing sc2 and thus it's being played.

 

[Destroid]

But.. muta micro!

 

[CrazyLoon]

Starcraft 2 doesn't have lan. Voice acting was incredibly derp in SC2. Hell, all the audio work of SC2 sucked.

 

[Shancoduff]

I think it's generally accepted in the Starcraft community that Brood War is the better game than SC2. But the money is migrating to the newer game as it's newer and flashier, which means the BW players are migrating as well. I only played SC1 as kid, and was thus shit at it, so I can't really give my own opinion on the differences.

Hell, all the audio work of SC2 sucked.

Yeh the music and other audio in SC1 were something special, but very disappointing in SC2.


GSL was so bad today, hopefully MVP and Parting can make up for it in the semis. Tomorrow should be good as well. I wonder if there'd be any interest in a more Live Report thread on the Codex?

 

[Average Manatee]

While the matchmaking isn't so bad itself, the problem I have with it is that there's no good alternative and no convenient way to reset your rank.This is a problem if you stop playing for a couple of months and then come back - your skills will have deteriorated but your ranking will have remained the same, meaning you will have to play against people way better than you until your skill and ranking equalize again. I agree that a way to choose your opponents would be incline; ideally the game would be a hybrid of SC1's customizable system and the SC2 matchmaking system.

Some kind of slider for +- 20% rating or w/e would be good. Along with choosing what race you face. Trying to learn the races would be a lot easier if you could settle on a few specific matchups at once.

 

[Shancoduff]

While the matchmaking isn't so bad itself, the problem I have with it is that there's no good alternative and no convenient way to reset your rank.This is a problem if you stop playing for a couple of months and then come back - your skills will have deteriorated but your ranking will have remained the same, meaning you will have to play against people way better than you until your skill and ranking equalize again. I agree that a way to choose your opponents would be incline; ideally the game would be a hybrid of SC1's customizable system and the SC2 matchmaking system.

Some kind of slider for +- 20% rating or w/e would be good. Along with choosing what race you face. Trying to learn the races would be a lot easier if you could settle on a few specific matchups at once.

There are customs games and irc channels full of people looking for practice partners by the way.