I know many here are fans of strategy in general, whether that be in games or irl. What are your opinions on how SC2 will be remembered strictly as a game of strategy?
It will be remembered as a good and very competitive game and very polished,and similar to what people think of BW,it will be remembered as a clickfest game. That’s the real perception of starcraft outside the starcraft bubble, a game that is only suited for 500apm koreans.
It will be remembered as the game that has the guy in it that hated ultralisk.
4 Likes
A failure?
I mean, all those missions with timers, rushs, insisting on speed.
From the “strategy” point of view, things look bad.
That’s definitely not the aspect SC2 should try to be remembered by at least.
1 Like
He who click faster shall win!
If you have life prob bad idea to play it.
1 Like
Failure?,the game sold very well, many millions of copies,probably around 15M, and many years later people still play it. It’s viewed as the last classic blizz game,pay to play,no microtransactions,without DLC (they cane later). And don’t forget that the game inspired the current streamer thing, justintv was created by some dude who wanted to watch starcraft 2.
1 Like
A game where your ability to dribble a basketball directly affects your ability to play it.
You didn’t read the OP properly. He explicitly put a very big focus on the “game of strategy” part.
Sales, money, streaming, those are irrelevant in this, once again very specific, context.
1 Like
It is a game of strategy just like boxing or MMA(or even chess) is strategy.
The strategy only kicks in when the physical(or mechanical in case of chess) skill is at least within a certain range of each other between the two opponents.
People have this romantic idea that they are all smart enough to employ a good strategy given all the time in the world. Well that is just not the case and very ignorant and arrogant if you ask me.
We never have all the time in the world and given the constraints of any battle or fight in comparison SC2 is a very strategic game by all standards.
5 Likes
The best in the genre.
1 Like
As the pinnacle of APM heavy strategy game, in which mastering it makes you an athlete in gaming more than in any other game, and produces best and most beautiful games to watch coming out of that skill. Then this beauty is ruined by some designs such as protoss disruptor ballz and such stupid units even widow mines I would put in the stupid design.
Yes, some like Janos think that you need to be some braniac with Chess time of thinking before you let your opponent play the game… like think and do ultra slowly.
I can say that playing such games like War3 and SC2 have made me think the multiple outcomes ahead of time and that’s in life too, and to multitask and be very tactical, I applied these habits IRL
It definitely did because everyone who gave me s*it for that I ended up beating 
It’s interesting that you say this because I’ve been training martial arts for the last 3 months and have thought the exact same thing.
There is a general sense of “strategy” to the overall game of Starcraft 2 but it’s only effective insofar as it is known as a schema upon which your immediate actions are based. If you translated this to fighting it would be something like this:
In order to be an effective boxer you must know all the moves, combos, angles, psychology of boxing etc. However this does not allow you to form a grand strategy, rather it lets you know what move you should use right now because you know the consequence of that move.
Through that the fight develops, and when you look back on it it can look like some grand strategy was employed because each move made logical sense but from the perspective of the fighters it was just move-counter move.
Many people complain about the inherent advantage of speed in Starcraft 2 but I think the mechanical skill barrier in some ways make the strategy more impressive, as you are only able to execute strategies if you are very skilled at the game.
Watching players like Maru and Serral play SC2 like chess in the late game is impressive because it requires 400 APM to do. Just like how it’s impressive to see someone like Floyd Mayweather toy with his opponent that makes it seem like he’s planned the whole thing out, when in reality he’s just so good it makes it look like that.
When I was at my best I basically knew jack about how the game worked strategically and just brute forced people by having an effective use of 300 - 350 APM. That alone was enough to get into the top 1% of the ladder. The ability to then combine that with deep strategical knowledge of the game is what makes someone a champion at this game.
1 Like
Also please be aware that you are currently the internet version of the bully from Back to the Future.
I did kung-fu for many years and some competition fighting. Still do it though although I stopped fighting.
There certainly is a strategy to it. You are always trying to force the opponent into uncomfortable situations to open up his defences. If you are against really good opponents you open your own defences to get them to attack that weak spot so you can anticipate it and react to it. Of course(just like in SC2) it doesn’t work against inexperienced opponents but then you can just slap them around with the most basic moves so you don’t really need it.
Mayweather is a very strategic fighter. So strategic that it is boring. He does almost the same strategy against everyone and it is so good that he never gets hurt but never scores a knockout either.
But physical fighting has many limitations that SC2 don’t have. One is the sucker punches(cheese) where a lucky shot can knock out a better opponent quite easily. The other is the number of fights a person can handle. In SC2 you can do 10 000 games and keep improving. 10 000 fights is physically just impossible. Fighting philosophy translates very well to SC2 though.
Only the plats patrol think that SC2 is a game of fast fingers and no strategy but there is plenty of strategy, WHERE, WHEN you will attack, which counters, or will you make your oppo think you will get one type of army yet you switch to another. Positioning also exists in this game…
So dont listen to gold leaguers like Jonus who say that
1 Like
Yea indeed. But to be fair I also thought that when I was in gold league.
It is indeed a case of unconsciously incompetent.
I don’t think it’ll be remembered as a strategy game at all. Same situations, same outcomes over and over. It was a game that was too afraid to experiment with its mapdesign, too shoehorned in its unit design, too focused on gimmicks to step back and look at the battlefield at large, as evidenced by the extremely zoomed-in camera.
It burrowed players in trivial acts (like injecting larvae, spawning mules, requiring manual detonation on several weapons, and perpetually running out of resources), shifting from RealTimeStrategy to realTIME (and maybe a little bit of optional strategy).
The strategy was always the same. It all came down to how fast you could execute the same old routines. Any strategy elements it might have had were either encouraged to the point they became obligatory or completely nerfed into the forbidden realm, numbing the whole experience down to rock-paper-scissors.
It’ll also be remembered as the game they could never get right. Fiddled with it for about ten years (which was probably necessary because once someone figured out the “optimal build” it lost all its replayability so the developer had to shift some values around until a new optimal build was found) – and after those ten years the dev just walked away leaving it in whatever state.
In a game of chess, the developer doesn’t have to step in every few months to change the rules just to keep it entertaining. But Starcraft? If the tactics are rock-paper-scissors, I’d say the overall strategy is a puzzle: you know where you’re heading, you’re just going through the motions.
I will say this though: what the game itself lacked, the community made up for. I think it’ll be remembered most of all for its arcade.
1 Like
Still never made GM.
Hey Robo, your shoe is untied.
This is not true at all. The main problem is though that you hardly ever have the same opponents. If you were to play against the same opponents more regularly(like i n a chess club setting) then the strategy part would be more clear since in those situations you can have clear counters to your opponents preferred strategies. Just like you see on pro level, not one best of 7 can be won by doing one strategy.
Chess developed over a period of 1500 years with each culture adapting it and changing it until it settled into what we know today a bit more than a century ago. Even today there are slight variations for different purposes. Compare that to the 10 years of SC2 then I think SC2 is a relatively complete game from the beginning.
2 Likes