On May 04 2011 07:08 Mortality wrote:This isn't just nostalgia. Any old schooler (provided he doesn't have an attitude like Idra) will tell you that Garimto was one of the smartest players to have ever played this game. That's what made things so frustrating for him: this is a STRATEGY game after all, but when you live in an era of standardized strategies (that have become standard based in large part on YOU) and you find yourself losing simply because your opponents are better at building more units...
I agree that I'm looking at this through modern eyes.
And to be honest, it does sound a lot like nostalgia. I didn't keep up with the scene, as it were (TL scared me off for some reason), but I watched professional games starting back in 2001 or 2002 whenever it was that replays were available (and were much more readily available than they are today), and continued watching StarCraft through around 2005 - 06-ish. I missed most of Savior's revolution in how the game was understood, when I started watching again in 2008, but since it had been so long since I had watched those games, I didn't really notice that these players were necessarily playing better - in terms of, yes, timing, mechanics, etc. - until I saw the OSL Finals VODs topic and went back and watched them. It was a real eye-opener in terms of how much the game had changed, and I could see how the difference before and after Boxer in terms of how people were microing, how iloveoov and Nada caused something of a macro revolution that made Boxer-esque one-base play almost obsolete, how Nada's mechanics created a new standard, how Savior exploited timing windows in a way that changed how the game was approached and helped give him his nickname.
And I'm not really sure saying that Garimto lost simply because his opponents were better at building more units is fair to his opponents. He lost because his opponents were better at playing the game; part of the game includes the ability to macro. I wouldn't be surprised if he were also losing because of inferior micro (another part of the game), and a relative dearth of practice compared to when he was at his peak. I don't want to discount understanding the game as important (and it's obviously possible to comprehend a plan better than you are able to execute it, or discount the importance of the players who came up with these innovations in the first place, but I can't agree with the notion that it's simply "different." Players today play the game better than their predecessors did before. I don't think the fact that they're playing in a post-macro revolution, post-timing windows world takes away from that.