Spring RTS Engine

SwiftSpear wrote:

Gota wrote:fact is SC is in no way innovative or has any special unique features...

Name the last blizzard game that was.

The Lost Vikings

I really think that for this release blizzard just didn't want to screw it up. They played safe and made it similar to the original, but not too similar. I think and hope that they will change and will innovate in the next 2 versions.

I don't have the game, and I don't have and never had starcraft 1. Should I buy it? Is it multiplayer worth it? I really need some advice

jK wrote:

SwiftSpear wrote:

Gota wrote:fact is SC is in no way innovative or has any special unique features...

Name the last blizzard game that was.

The Lost Vikings

Not True...I think Warcraft 3,although i don't particularly like it(small scale battles),was pretty fresh in how it played and also its control mechanisms.

Gota wrote:Not True...I think Warcraft 3,although i don't particularly like it(small scale battles),was pretty fresh in how it played and also its control mechanisms.

A hero system in a RTS wasn't new, perhaps a skill tree was, but that was already very common in other strategy games.
And low scale battles weren't anything new at all - C&C1, Red Alert had such already, not to forget Ground Control.

Blizzard is a company that polishes, makes us realize the potential of ideas that someone else came up with. They've never been an innovator.

This.
Don't think Starcraft or Starcraft 2 are the best RTS ever made. They are just polished and are very reliable in multiplayer. Compare to older C&C with all the sync error bla and IPX connection. Starcraft only had ipx at start as well but it was patched. And which RTS has something like battleNET that did go offline after a few years?
For some reason Starcraft 2 got very much publicity, even people who usually do not play RTS are hyped about it.
"zomg perfect balance" is not an arguement as few players are good enough to really notice.

fuck the haters im loving it
add me on battlenet yo ausi6@hotmail.com

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:fuck the haters im loving it
add me on battlenet yo ausi6@hotmail.com

Ha Ha
Did you find a 50 dollar bill?

jK wrote:

Gota wrote:Not True...I think Warcraft 3,although i don't particularly like it(small scale battles),was pretty fresh in how it played and also its control mechanisms.

A hero system in a RTS wasn't new, perhaps a skill tree was, but that was already very common in other strategy games.
And low scale battles weren't anything new at all - C&C1, Red Alert had such already, not to forget Ground Control.

WC3 had creeps, heros with xp and items, nonexistent macro, really high hp to dmg ratio, how are the battles anything at all like those games you mentioned... (I dont like WC3 though)

Red Alert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7iXDY9PRw
WC3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjskE1xU54s

And original Warcraft (1 of the first RTS's pretty much) and Starcraft (dissimilar factions) were kinda innovative too... Though who cares if a game is innovative or not, if it's good.

Part of being good is being innovative but i guess people have different tastes.

JohannesH wrote: Red Alert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7iXDY9PRw

They should revive red alert and add some features like build que and make it playable in all possible resolutions.
And then make it a free advertisement financed game like quake live
that would rock.

JohannesH wrote:

jK wrote:

Gota wrote:Not True...I think Warcraft 3,although i don't particularly like it(small scale battles),was pretty fresh in how it played and also its control mechanisms.

A hero system in a RTS wasn't new, perhaps a skill tree was, but that was already very common in other strategy games.
And low scale battles weren't anything new at all - C&C1, Red Alert had such already, not to forget Ground Control.

WC3 had creeps, heros with xp and items, nonexistent macro, really high hp to dmg ratio, how are the battles anything at all like those games you mentioned... (I dont like WC3 though)

Red Alert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7iXDY9PRw
WC3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjskE1xU54s

And original Warcraft (1 of the first RTS's pretty much) and Starcraft (dissimilar factions) were kinda innovative too... Though who cares if a game is innovative or not, if it's good.

Actually I think WarWind covered most of that stuff. But WarWind was terrible. Imho, Warlords Battlecry was the best hero-based RTS. It was good at putting together a lot of threads from various games, including some good TA-isms.

JohannesH wrote:WC3 had creeps, heros with xp and items, nonexistent macro, really high hp to dmg ratio, how are the battles anything at all like those games you mentioned... (I dont like WC3 though)

Red Alert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7iXDY9PRw
WC3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjskE1xU54s

And original Warcraft (1 of the first RTS's pretty much) and Starcraft (dissimilar factions) were kinda innovative too... Though who cares if a game is innovative or not, if it's good.

So it stole from Heroes of Might of Magic instead of directly from other RTS games then... HP to damage ratio isn't creative development, it's variable tweaking.

RTS games had been being made since 1984, and warcraft came out in 1994. Warcraft basically combined the resource gathering of Sim ant with the unit interaction gameplay of Dune II, and put in in a mideval universe similar to 1987's Ancient Art of War at Sea and stealing liberally from Warhammer.

There were MANY MANY RTS games with dissimilar race factions preceding starcraft, but none balanced so finely... although, honestly, the balance in the first releases of starcraft was pretty atrocious. If it hadn't received the post release love it did received it would have just been another non spectacular game.

Blizzard makes great games, but they have pretty much NEVER been the company that pushes the industry forward in the realms of innovation. Even lost vikings, it wasn't that much of an innovator in it's genre.

What game plays like Warcraft 3?none
What game plays like Starcraft 2?Starcraft 1.
Oh and excuse me but the Warlords battlecry series was very different from Warcraft 3.

Warcraft 1 was hardly different from dune2 without a hotkey you couldnt select more than 1 unit.
And I think the first C&C by westwood revived the RTS genre not Warcraft2

placed gold, am now 36 platinum, should be diamond tommorow... the invite only pro-league awaits

Gota wrote:What game plays like Warcraft 3?none
What game plays like Starcraft 2?Starcraft 1.
Oh and excuse me but the Warlords battlecry series was very different from Warcraft 3.

Starcraft doesn't play any more like Starcraft2 than Red alert plays like Warcraft3. Starcraft is empathetically a classic RTS, and Starcraft2 is solidly a modern RTS. Starcraft2 has a similar style of unit interaction to Starcraft, and many units and structures have the same name and design, but that is where the similarities end. More unit interaction layers have been added, the interface has been overhauled, the graphics have been overhauled, the balance has been overhauled, to any experienced Starcraft player it doesn't feel like the same game at all.

I think the warhammer series has been much cooler overall.
I suppose the first warhammer was sort of company of heroes meets warhammer lore but it had so many races and types of play...
Warhammer 2 unlike starcraft 2 was completely different from it's prequal and it felt fresh.

SwiftSpear wrote:Starcraft doesn't play any more like Starcraft2 than Red alert plays like Warcraft3.

They're not quite that different no matter how you present it :D

@SwiftSpear - I have to disagree about StarCraft - I played some games with dissimilar factions that preceeded StarCraft, and I can't think of any that went the extra mile like SC did to keep the factions distinct. The economic differences between the Zerg and the other two factions really stand out to me.

Pxtl wrote:The economic differences between the Zerg and the other two factions really stand out to me.

+1 I'm still trying to emulate this in my spring mod by running ideas through my head. It's very difficult.