StarCraft

[KDR_11k]

Convoys that need protection are a nice idea but unfortunately can't be done in Spring right now.

[SpikedHelmet]

Yes.

"Hm, there's some tiberium right across that river... I'll just drive straight through the enemy's base to get to it."

[ronkkrop]

I'm shocked so much of this community hates starcraft. SC is a fantastic RTS. Three very different and very balanced factions, which im sure you modders know takes a lot of effort. From a development standpoint, the strategy is very well thought out. Diminishing resources is key. Without it, you wind up with players who wind up sitting at a stalemate for hours on end (ever set up TA with 2 AI's?). If your tactic doesn't work, and you don't have a backup, you're dead.

SC was popular BECAUSE it was simple. You could easily make the argument that less unit types means more strategy.

Comments?

[Ishach]

oh yeah i remember this thread

[smoth]

ronkrop, I liked starcraft before broodwars.

[Neddie]

I'm not fond of Starcraft for a number of reasons. It was a great RTS for me when I was younger, but it also destroyed my interest in the genre - an interest which was only revived by this engine many years later.

A few serious flaws in Starcraft....

1. Starcraft relies on an absurd amount of unnecessary micromanagement and thus clicking. With carpal tunnel, I physically can't get my APM to the point where I can play competitively anymore - it isn't that I'm unable to plan or organize my actions at a competitive level, I just can't click fast enough to execute them.
2. Starcraft, due to the simplicity of the game design, has a very limited pool of tactics which can be employed in play. It offers little to no intellectual engagement, particularly after you have completed the campaigns and know the function of each and every unit. I play games for intellectual engagement first, emotional immersion second, and distraction third.
3. The diminishing resource model is a blatant and imperfect failsafe, implemented because there is no promise that conquest is possible. If victory is not achieved through conquest, it is achieved through conservation. Battles can end with neither side achieving victory, however - I've seen a number of games where the map has tapped out and nobody has active units.
4. Everybody holds it up as a golden standard. That is simply offensive.

Starcraft is a great RTS, within certain limits. It does not, however, represent the pinnacle of the genre, or of strategy in general. It represents the pinnacle of RTS for the casual gamer - low learning curve, low level of complexity, low system requirements, low intellectual requirements.

To be honest, I find Kernel Panic more fun than I ever found Starcraft.

[Lolsquad_Steven]

A few flaws in my skill

1. I'm not very good with the mouse, i refuse to get better with it or use the keyboard, i also think any RTS i have to take time to learn how to get physicaly better not just mentaly is not worth it.

2. I didn't take the time to understand the game, people ussually don't go for a bio build against protoss when playing terran, i didn't find out why, i just followed along. I play for fun.

3. I build alot of defence so when i run out i have no units to attack with, also some games have ended up in a draw, no game ever should be allowed to end in a draw imo.

4. Alot of people like this game, i don't like it.

I'm a good gamer but i have my limits, i didn't take the time to understand the game like alot of people so i'm fine at the moment acting like my views on the game are superior than other people's view, even when they've played it properly.

I enjoy playing kernal panic more than i enjoy playing starcraft starcraft.

[CautionToTheWind]

low learning curve, low level of complexity, low system requirements, low intellectual requirements.

Is this something i would need to be familiar with religion to understand?

[mr_dead_meat]

Yir, do a stracraft mod! Not just the engine, but a whole mod

[rattle]

Isn't there already a 3D remake of starcraft? I'm sure AF mentioned it somewhere...

[Lolsquad_Steven]

There's a starcraft mod for warcraft 3, that could be the one he was talking about.

[AF]

The limited resource model is a hold over from when the game was called warcraft 2. The limited resource model was only there because its was the convention. TA broke out with the infinite resource model and should have changed everything. The infinite model was revolutionary but starcraft and co destroyed it. Hence why we continue to see limited resource models even in modern RTS games.

Starcraft was never revolutionary or innovative, it just accumulted and stole lots of ideas and jammed them together, then cultivated a extremist fanbase and a huge marketting budget. Its extremely overrated as a game.

[Lolsquad_Steven]

Starcraft's gameplay is the best for competetive RTS play, people don't play games just because they're innovative. There's simply no other RTS more balanced or demanding physicaly and mentally.

[rattle]

I've played the StarCraft RPG map for WC3, it's not quite what I meant. No there is a full remake.

edit: Hmmm. http://www.wc3campaigns.net/revolution/index.php
That's still not it but it's looking good however.

[mr_dead_meat]

[quote="AF"]TA broke out with the infinite resource model and should have changed everything. [/qoute]

A great strategy game does not need to have infinite resources. Starcraft might not have been revolutionary but it's still one of the greatest strategy games ever! Don't take my word for it, ask the koreans or the many people who have played it.

[smoth]

popularity does not equal good.... dota anyone?

however, starcraft prior to broodwars had it's nice stuff. I personally think wc III was a better game.

[mr_dead_meat]

popularity does not equal good.... dota anyone?

however, starcraft prior to broodwars had it's nice stuff. I personally think wc III was a better game.

actually popularity = good. That's how you define a good game, anything else is selective for a group. The more people that like it, the better it is regarded. I and people I know don't always think that something that is popular is good, but the masses decide when it comes to ENTERTAINMENT.

[AF]

Starcraft was a Real time tactical game not a strategy game. There is extremely little in the way of strategic depth in starcraft, its purely tactical.

There just isnt enough resources on starcraft maps, homeworld 1+" did it right with small asteroid fields that had like 80k resources but would last a long time being mined, you'd need more asteroids to mine because of the queues of harvesters waiting tog et at the asteroids.

CC1, Homeworld, OTA, total war, ground control, they were the games that gave us our genre as we know it today. Warcraft and Starcraft are a pick and mix of the concepts these games brought forward. Warcraft and starcraft are just flashier versions of the same old game with a few extras to muddle it up.

[mr_dead_meat]

CC1, Homeworld, OTA, total war, ground control, they were the games that gave us our genre as we know it today. Warcraft and Starcraft are a pick and mix of the concepts these games brought forward. Warcraft and starcraft are just flashier versions of the same old game with a few extras to muddle it up.

As I said, not revolutionary. But it still is a great game, because it incorporates alot of elements from other good games. I would rather play starcraft than DUNE 2 or Command and Conquoer. And not just because starcraft is flashier. I don't like total annihilation because it's revolutionery, but because it's a great game just like starcraft is.

[Zenka]

I think warcraft 2 actually did shape the RTS genre. and you forgot dune2 in the list!