Poll: Is StarCraft really the quintessential RTS?

[Mochan]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread from people who have no idea how to play Starcraft. Protoss wins everytime? While you were building photon cannons and carriers the enemy zerg would have sent a horde of Ultralisks to stomp your base flat. I also bet you've never had to fight a herd of darkclouded ultralisks. Those will decimate just about any base before going down. Battle Cruisers and Science Vessel will destroy a fleet of carriers easy, and if you are feeling really bad you make a fleet of valkyries who will snuff out all those carriers in two seconds flat.

C&C was more ground breaking? Hilarious. C&C3 which just came out last year was more primitive than Starcraft, with races that were very similar to each other -- very little differentiation compared to Starcraft that had 3 fundamentally different races which each had counterstrategies for any strategy your opponent of any race might try to play.

"It's not just the difficulty, though. I played as Protoss, and won, too, but there wasn't any real strategy in it."

What we see here is the classic case of a guy who was not good at a game, got owned all the time, and thus classified the game as "bad" because he wasn't good enough to play it.

"I like scouting around with my Rocketeers and getting past enemy forces with my spy, and then use my naval forces to blockade my enemy, and then send in the Apocalypse tanks."

I suppose you never heard of units like the Dark Templar, the Ghost, Science Vessel, Observer, or even just scouting with a lone zergling. Blockading with some bunkers and firebats, siege tanks and turrets, blockade with photon cannons and dragoons, send in Mass Carrier Rush. What exactly are we missing here? Are you sure you played the game?

Espionage? I take it you people never played the game against people, only ever against the computer. The meat of any RTS (except for Dune 2) is in the multiplayer. The singleplayer is just there as a training ground so you dont die in multiplayer too easily.

What's this about Starcraft's main contribution to the genre being the use of diamond-shaped maps? Never mind the introduction of 3 totally distinct and extremely well-balanced races, the introduction of a full-fledged air game, different kinds of territory requirements or the herculean task of supremely balancing the three different races.


And to the people who think C&C is more strategic than Starcraft, only someone who only played C&C and never or barely played Starcraft could claim such an idea. C&C is more given to rushing and amassing huge armies to win than Starcraft ever was. In Starcraft it is very easy to cripple a large army with the correct counter strategy, even with less troops. That's why observation (espionage if you will) plays such a big part in competitive Starcraft play -- you need to find out what your opponent is building in order to prepare the appropriate countermeasures. Scouting is essential in Starcraft if you want to win against good opponents, you can't just do your own thing and build a large army and attack and hope for the best. Your opponent will surely counter your strategy.

I mean seriously, how many of you play Starcraft competitively here? It's quite clear most of you don't.

 

[Sethran]

I think we need to tone back to the actual definition of 'quintessential'.

Quintessential - the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.

Running under this definition it is a fact that StarCraft is the quintessential RTS.

Starcraft was fully devoted to the real time strategy feel, and even if you can't use the strategies required that doesn't mean the strategies aren't there. Just randomly making units and throwing them around the map won't work unless your opponents just began playing that very same day. The three races are balanced evenly against one another, the maps are precisely aligned so that you must decide whether to go this way or that way to expand your territory, the management of squads is essential for any large scale battles, and your bases defenses must be carefully designed to withstand large assaults while still being able to manufacture enough units to battle.

There is nothing about StarCraft that can be called anything other than an RTS, and it is the embodiment of what RTSs are to be. That doesn't make it the best RTS, and I agree that it isn't, but that does make it what RTSs are supposed to be. Whenever one speaks of any kind of top-down strategy game, it is rare that one will not compare it to StarCraft and because of this is is the 'quintessential RTS' as the title asks.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you play it competitively, nor whether or not you've got a raging erection for C&C and dub it the greatest of it's genre. It has nothing to do with being the best, it has nothing to do with even liking the game. The fact remains that StarCraft set the bar for RTSs and remains the standard by which we judge the genre.

 

[ScreamingCrab]

I mean seriously, how many of you play Starcraft competitively here? It's quite clear most of you don't.

Which is kind of the point really, isn't it. Most people can't be arsed to learn every nuance and strategy and counter strategy and counter counter strategy to the game. Believe me, trying to get into this game online for the first time is a horrible and daunting experience and even people with experience in online play won't be particularly enamoured by their first few goes. Most people will want to just faddle around with the skirmish or trog their way through the campaign. Out of about five people I know who completed the game, only I tried it online, and I just found it stressful.

If the question was "Is Starcraft the Quintessential Multiplayer RTS" then you'd probably be right, or at least close to it. However, it's not. I like being able to save games. I like playing at a relatively leisurely pace. Just because someone hasn't bothered to go horribly in depth in the game doesn't mean their opinion can be written off because of it. Frankly, while I enjoyed the campaign and skirmishes for the game, I enjoyed other RTS campaigns more.

C&C may be cut down, but that's the point, isn't it. It's not hard to pick up, damned addictive when you get into it, and has decent single player replay value. And, as internet gaming has taught me, I'd sooner play on my own or with mates than any hyped up 17 year old smartarse, and I think a fair few people would agree.

EDIT

Having looked up "Quintessential" and now knowing it means something like "pure" rather than "best":

bugger off.

 

[chuiu]

The races aren't balanced, in fact they are pretty imbalanced. But its common practice for map makers to adjust their maps to even out races (so that Terran can't abuse high ground, Zerg can't abuse open spaces, and Protoss can't abuse choke points).

Starcraft is a perfect mix of gameplay elements and diversity where other games tend to lack in certain areas.

AOE lacks a sense of urgency.
C&C lacks variety, and when it doesn't it lacks depth.
TA is dated and feels like more of a chore to play.
W2 lacks variety.
W3 is a RPG, not an RTS. Why do people keep calling it an RTS?

 

[shatnershaman]

The races aren't balanced, in fact they are pretty imbalanced. But its common practice for map makers to adjust their maps to even out races (so that Terran can't abuse high ground, Zerg can't abuse open spaces, and Protoss can't abuse choke points).

Starcraft is a perfect mix of gameplay elements and diversity where other games tend to lack in certain areas.

AOE lacks a sense of urgency.
C&C lacks variety, and when it doesn't it lacks depth.
TA is dated and feels like more of a chore to play.
W2 lacks variety.
W3 is a RPG, not an RTS. Why do people keep calling it an RTS?

Company of heroes? (P.S HOW the hell is starcraft NOT outdated)

 

[Hurray Forums]

I'll just start by saying I don't like Blizzard. I feel most of their games are oversimplified time wasters that are rather dull to play. However I think Starcraft is the RTS to beat at the moment. Nearly every gameplay element of it is standard for RTS. For one thing all the complaints about imbalance are simply ignorance. I'm not trying to be rude that is just how it is. It is far more balanced then other RTS I have played and EVERY single tactic you care to name can be countered quite effectively. Also the races are incredibly different allowing for three totally different play styles. The large community, though some what rude at times, leads to an amazing amount of variety of maps and games. It falls under the category of easy to play hard to master which is what most games should strive for I think. The only real complaint I have is the story is absolutely terrible but I didn't pick up an RTS for story time so oh well.

 

[shatnershaman]

I'll just start by saying I don't like Blizzard. I feel most of their games are oversimplified time wasters that are rather dull to play. However I think Starcraft is the RTS to beat at the moment.

Really I thought it was speed chess.

 

[Jakkar]

But what is it about Starcraft that establishes it as this 'ultimate RTS'?

I see... A grey, repetitive mixture of previous games, carefully researched to provide a balance of exactly what appeals to the average gamer, much like mass market television or a McDonals meal.

No innovation, no clever ideas, nothing new, even so many years ago. It provided only what had been done before, in a smooth, fast, simplistic form.

It's what Blizzard do; copy and polish, genre by genre, then resell to garner the profits earlier developers failed to for lack of older projects to learn from.

Nothing they've ever made has broken new ground or advanced the industry in any way, whereas all have been noted as unusually 'addictive', and have earned a great deal of money. Where does the money go?

The company are... Viral. Consuming, growing, replicating, repeating, consuming more, but they do not seem to truly produce anything. They regurgitate what others have made without a shred of creativity.

I know I am in a minority, and they are not in it to make people happy but to make money, but I've never enjoyed a Blizzard game for more than a few hours or days at most. Having seen several friends dragged into Diablo, and later World of Warcraft for months or years of their life, neglecting everything they care for in favour of hunting new items or levelling up, I cannot find anything good to say for Blizzard.

They put me in mind almost of a drug pusher *chuckles*

 

[facepalm]

I agree, TA was a fun game. I'm addicted to C&C; hundreds of times better than StarCraft.

You actually think C&C requires anything like the ammount of skill and strategy that SC does?

LOL

I do agree that the C&C and AOE franchise has a better interface, but thats because SC is rather dated, even though it is still one of the most competetive RTS's on the market. Ever thought there was a reason for that? It is the pinnacle of RTS gaming because it is more balanced, and has more strategic depth than any other RTS on the market.

 

[DEC_42]

I never played competitively online, but I loved Star Craft for all of the reasons you listed. I still love the Hydralisk rush... Pwns EVERYTHING!

...exactly. The sides, were, to say the least, unbalanced. Terrans could not hold a fight until late game, which by then were crushed by "hordes of Ultralisks to stomp your base flat."

All right, let's bar C&C for a minute and consider our alternatives, as many have said about StarCraft: "It's the RTS to beat." It won't mind some other opponents.

Has anyone played

Company of Heroes
Supreme Commander
Act of War: Direct Action

There is incredible diversity between Allied and Axis strategy in COH, and it uses squad gameplay, instead of single units, which can be upgraded (both individually and widely) with a long and detailed tech tree.

Supreme Commander. No one can say there is no depth to this game. It has a MASSIVE tech tree and incredible unit diversity. The campaign elements, ironically, were taken from StarCraft.

Act of War. Sides: US Army: Conventional Weapons, large battlefield command. Task Force Talon: Futuristic tech, stealth, money management needed (TFT's weapons were expensive as hell). Consortium: Stealth, Guerrilla warfare, sabotage. (Zerging also possible with cheap '74 soldiers)

Three games, with real balance and true depth - not the cloned and rehashed kind in StarCraft.

 

[shatnershaman]

Has anyone played

Company of Heroes
Supreme Commander
Act of War: Direct Action

1. Yes love it.
2. Yes can't run it
3. Never heard of

 

[KamikazeSailor]

I never understood the big deal about Starcraft. Honestly, when I played it it seemed like a futuristic version of Age of Empires 2, it was all the same as far as layouts and resources just with different names and textures... and Age of Empires 2 managed close to 20 races with unique traits whereas Starcraft only had 3...

I've always seen Age of Empires as the "ultimate RTS" One of the reasons I look forward to Halo Wars...

But Starcraft was FUN... I definately liked playing the game... and I'm a big fan of anything RTS... but I think the main reason Starcraft was so big is because it was one of the few RTS games, one of the few Western Hemisphere games period, to get entrenched in the Asian gaming market... I actually watched Korean televised tournaments of Starcraft when I was in Japan...

Almost 50% of all Starcraft sales came from South Korea alone...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-05-21-starcraft2-peek_N.htm

 

[shatnershaman]

Surprised with all the in depth game gamers here why don't more people just play chess.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The races aren't balanced, in fact they are pretty imbalanced. But its common practice for map makers to adjust their maps to even out races (so that Terran can't abuse high ground, Zerg can't abuse open spaces, and Protoss can't abuse choke points).

So, they each have an advantage over the other two in a certain situation, and this to you is imba?

No, Imba would be where one race had a consistent advantage in all or a majority of situations over the other two. The advantages held by the Starcraft races each require them to have the correct terrain situation, and for the player to actually put some effort in to exploit the advantage.

I don't think it's still the quintessential RTS (I would say Company of Heroes is that now), but it certainly was when it was released.

 

[Chaos Marine]

The most perfect RTS was the original Homeworld. It had everything. Huge fleets, consistent units, a wide range of ships to build, an intriguing story that actually made you feel for the Hiigarans. I know I hated the Taiidani after they toched Kharak over a three thousand year old agreement that no one, besides themselves, even remembered. I felt an overwhelming sense of satisfaction at the end of the game from destroying the hated Taiidani mothership.

 

[Z4N5H1N]

...exactly. The sides, were, to say the least, unbalanced. Terrans could not hold a fight until late game, which by then were crushed by "hordes of Ultralisks to stomp your base flat."

This makes it painfully clear you've never played Starcraft at anything even remotely close to a competitive level. Anyone who questions how balanced the three races are in Starcraft is in a sadly delusional state of mind. There are enormous tournaments, with thousand of dollars at stake, played quite frequently, and all of the three races are picked equally. If this doesn't show that the game is perfectly balanced, nothing does.

In regards to the original question: Yes, of course it is. It's the most widely played RTS in the world, even now, ten years after it's release. And the competitive community is among the fiercest and most lucrative of any game ever. Starcraft tournaments in Korea are like hockey games in Canada: crazy and enormous as all hell.

I understand why some people don't get it, though. The true perfection and beauty of Starcraft isn't really visible until you've advanced to a level of play where balance actually matters. Amongst relatively inexperienced players, balance doesn't matter. It is only at an extremely high level of play that each tiny nuance of each unit and structure become vital, and in this department, Starcraft is the most finely tuned RTS ever created.

 

[Z4N5H1N]

Okay, I'm just going to say this once and for all: Anyone who thinks starcraft is unbalanced in any way is terrible at the game, has probably never so much as watched high-level tournament play, and is also probably largely oblivious to the fact that getting raped by the computer with a certain race does not make that race "unbalanced".

 

[Lord Gloom]

Ultralisk run? The terran would irradiate that in a second, assuming the guy built a handfull of science vessels, which are vital against zerg. And it would be impossible to just mass a huge number of ultralisks that could "stomp your base flat" because they require so many resources. You'd be screwed if you tried to save up 2000 minerals and 2000 vespian gas because while you're twiddling your thumbs and not slowly making units, the enemy continuously sends reenforcements and takes over your base. You need a fresh supply of units at all time. You have to slowly make resource heavy units like the ultralisk and use them. Then it just becomes a game of microing properly. I've played the game for years online and I can tell you that it is perfectly balanced once you break through the novice skill level.