#1 Edited by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

So I've been trying to get into StarCraft II lately for a number of reasons. First of all, I've had the game since it originally came out and I've still never played more than a few missions of the campaign or any multiplayer. Secondly, I am horrendously awful at RTS games that require base management and a ton of macro/micro. The only RTS games I've ever really enjoyed are games like Dawn of War II and Company of Heroes. Nonetheless, StarCraft seems pretty awesome and I'd like to get into it as my go-to multiplayer game.

Since making this StarCraft resolution, I've been trying to go back to previous Bombcasts/TNTs/etc. and trace the progression of Brad's (former?) addiction to StarCraft II. I know that he first started playing during the first game's beta, but I don't know when exactly it was because that beta lasted for months. Does anybody which Bombcast is the one where Brad first starts raving abotu StarCraft? Also, does anybody know which TNTs were StarCraft TNTs. Supposedly there's one infamous one where Brad lost horribly to a pro.

Thanks guys.

#3 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

If you want to actually get better at SC, then GB-produced vids probably aren't going to cut it, unfortunately. There's good content on here but I don't think it goes in-depth enough.

I'd recommend checking out the Team Liquid forums and giving a few of Day9's videos a watch.

The one tip I'd give to new players is to really get your macro down. Don't even worry about micro, just select your whole army and A+click. If your macro is solid you should be able to outproduce most low-level players and win through numbers.

#4 Edited by Rokkaku (222 posts) -

@jrinswand: It looks like mrfluke has helped you out, and I'll say that I wouldn't let bad RTS skills put you off multiplayer SC2. Blizzard's match-making system is good, in that you'll only play people of your skill level, and it keeps up with you as you get better (you will). And even if you don't, there are always enough new players or fellow RTS slow-developers (I'm one) to play with (just keep an eye out for cheese). Watch these videos and watch Day 9's tutorial videos, which are still relevant though made during Wings of Liberty. However, beware, if you do get into it, it's a very deep rabbit hole down which to fall...

#5 Edited by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

@ravenlight said:

If you want to actually get better at SC, then GB-produced vids probably aren't going to cut it, unfortunately. There's good content on here but I don't think it goes in-depth enough.

I don't want to watch Giant Bomb videos to learn how to play. I'm not sure I'd really learn anything that way. I've actually been reading up on Liquidpedia (even though most of that stuff doesn't mean anything to me) and watching professional/tutorial vids. I just want to watch GB stuff because I love GB. I'm also curious to find out how Brad went from normal video game guy (like myself) to a complete StarCraft nerd.

Edit: Also, it's really the Bombcast stuff that I'm trying to figure out. That and the first video match Brad played, where he lost horribly.

#6 Edited by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

I hate to bump, but...

#7 Posted by StarvingGamer (8283 posts) -

I think I have replays of beating Brad in the first 2 GB SC2 community tournaments somewhere around here... I'll pop back in if I end up finding them. They're either on an old PC or an external I have buried somewhere.

#8 Posted by Slag (4450 posts) -

I don't want to watch Giant Bomb videos to learn how to play. I'm not sure I'd really learn anything that way. I've actually been reading up on Liquidpedia (even though most of that stuff doesn't mean anything to me) and watching professional/tutorial vids. I just want to watch GB stuff because I love GB. I'm also curious to find out how Brad went from normal video game guy (like myself) to a complete StarCraft nerd.

I thought Brad was a hardcore SC years before-Giant Bomb even launched? i.e. fan a from the original game?

#9 Edited by mlarrabee (2967 posts) -

I haven't listened to these podcasts since their release dates, but judging purely from their descriptions I think these document Brad's growing--and continuing--obsession. Basically, if I noticed "Starcraft" in the description, I linked it. If you're not from the United States, I apologize but I used the American (illogical) method of shorthand dating: Month/Day/Year. Seriously, if I could singlehandedly make us use a properly tiered method I would, but when I alone do it just leads to confusion.

2/23/2010

4/20/2010

4/27/2010

5/18/2010

7/27/2010 - Release Date...

8/03/2010

8/10/2010

8/17/2010 - No Starcraft talk noted, but they mention BioShock Infinite. Yep, it has really been that long.

8/24/2010

#10 Posted by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

@mlarrabee: Holy shit! Thanks, duder! Giant Bomb saves the day!

#11 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11795 posts) -

You can play as Link in the gamecube version.

Online
#12 Posted by PoisonJam7 (356 posts) -

If you're not from the United States, I apologize but I used the American (illogical) method of shorthand dating: Month/Day/Year.

Explain how M/D/Y is illogical compared to D/M/Y.

#13 Posted by mlarrabee (2967 posts) -

@poisonjam7: Day/Month/Year tiers from the smallest unit of measurement to the largest. Also, "January 1, 2013" requires a comma to separate the two numbers to ease legibility, while "1 January 2013" doesn't.

#14 Posted by FTomato (235 posts) -

@jrinswand:There are a couple more SC2 TNT's that are just on Twitch. There was a thread that linked all the Twitch-only TNT's by game, but I can't find it.

#15 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@poisonjam7: Day/Month/Year tiers from the smallest unit of measurement to the largest. Also, "January 1, 2013" requires a comma to separate the two numbers to ease legibility, while "1 January 2013" doesn't.

The weirdest part is no one fucking says "January the first, 2013" they always say "the first of January, 2013."

That said, comma's separating things isn't a bad thing, really... I actually think it makes things look better on paper. Less like something a computer printed out in the header of a document.

Also, the best format is Y/M/D because it's the easiest way to sort by chronological order.