1 |
I
think
Zero-K
is
more
complex,
deep
and
rich
a
game,
with
basically
no
build
orders
and
endless
starting
options.
But
I
also
have
to
say
yeah,
it
is
easier.
How
interesting
to
think
about!
I've
always
considered
Zero-K
niche
and
hard
to
play
but
I
guess
I
also
consider
SC2
to
be
incredibly
niche
and
hard
to
play
despite
it's
popularity.
.
.
when
you
factor
in
giant
clusterfuck
team
games
where
you
have
no
power
over
the
outcome
anyway,
Zero-K
is
way
more
nub
friendly.
|
1 |
I
think
Zero-K
is
more
complex,
deep
and
rich
a
game,
with
basically
no
build
orders
and
endless
starting
options.
But
I
also
have
to
say
yeah,
it
is
easier.
How
interesting
to
think
about!
I've
always
considered
Zero-K
niche
and
hard
to
play
but
I
guess
I
also
consider
SC2
to
be
incredibly
niche
and
hard
to
play
despite
it's
popularity.
.
.
when
you
factor
in
giant
clusterfuck
team
games
where
you
have
no
power
over
the
outcome
anyway,
Zero-K
is
way
more
nub
friendly.
1v1
is
a
harrowing,
ego-destroying
experience
for
most
people
(
which
is
why
MOBAs
are
so
big)
.
|
3 |
But I do sort of suspect that if people were at a pro-level of play, if we had a big group of people who were better than Godde, Zero-K might be as hard to play (and perhaps as 'boring' and 'broken' or should I say 'solved') as SC2 is. It's hard to know.
|
3 |
But I do sort of suspect that if people were at a pro-level of play, if we had a big group of people who were better than Godde, Zero-K might be as hard to play (and perhaps as 'boring' and 'broken' or should I say 'solved') as SC2 is. It's hard to know.
|