Poll: Is StarCraft really the quintessential RTS?
- Thread starter Usige Beatha
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Two words: Zergling Rush.fanboyz said:
I prefer games where you can amass a grand army and wage war against other developed kingdoms. Starcraft is not one of those games.
You do all realize that what you're describing with star craft (Micromanagement) makes it less of an RTS and more of a Real Time Tactics game?
I loved SC, but moved onto DoW when it came out
DoW was a much faster game and that is the only criticism i have of SC, the games can draw out horribly
that is my only criticism, i worshipped the ground that game walked on and even got to a point where i went into any online match with a chance of winning, some more or less than others.
I love DoW for its play style, but nobody should ever compare RTS's, its not the same as comparing other games, each is almost a genre to itself.
And to anyone who has trouble balancing the game, trust me when i say its a matter of time, if you stick at it the glaring abilities of one race all mellow out. I once had a protoss player call me a Noob because i favor Zerg, and he perceived them to be weaker and have little strategy involved.
he learned quickly the lesson i teach to all potential Zerglings:
Zerg can be played decently with no strategy or skill.
Now imagine what they could be with it.
DoW was a much faster game and that is the only criticism i have of SC, the games can draw out horribly
that is my only criticism, i worshipped the ground that game walked on and even got to a point where i went into any online match with a chance of winning, some more or less than others.
I love DoW for its play style, but nobody should ever compare RTS's, its not the same as comparing other games, each is almost a genre to itself.
And to anyone who has trouble balancing the game, trust me when i say its a matter of time, if you stick at it the glaring abilities of one race all mellow out. I once had a protoss player call me a Noob because i favor Zerg, and he perceived them to be weaker and have little strategy involved.
he learned quickly the lesson i teach to all potential Zerglings:
Zerg can be played decently with no strategy or skill.
Now imagine what they could be with it.
Thats like saying Star Wars ripped off Star Trek and Tolkein just copied Beowulf. Its a medieval battle and a futuristic battle, they're called archetypes.Pyronox said:
Oh, and BTW, world war 1 was a total rip off of WW2.
Starcraft is unbalance because of zerg rushing? Are you kidding me? All it takes is 1 marine and a few scvs at the ramp to stop it. It's about scouting really. If you see your enemy 4pool, then he's fucked. And if the attack doesn't work, then he is in a world of trouble because his economy will be shit for a long time. Yes, sometimes you take a gamble by fast expanding and lose, but other times you do a fast barracks and kill the zerg rush and your opponents chance to win the game. And a zerg rush normally consists of only a handfull of zerglings. Most players don't want to gamble the entire game on one ballsy move.
First of all... Thank you Chaos Marine for reminding me about Homeworld; possibly one of the most epic and amazing strategy games I EVER played. Unfortunately not Quintiscential though (Bah, I should have been in bed 2 hours ago.)
I have to make my vote of Quintiscential RTS as being, well, Supreme Commander. Mostly for 2 reasons.
1. It does everything a Strategy Game should do, and does it RIGHT
and
2. It is actually closing in on a strategic level. (40 KM square maps vs. the absolutley pathetic map sizes for, well, every other game)
A game where air power is useful for more than just not being on the ground and where you can actually have RADAR with reasonably sensible range is amazing, and it certainly improves on Total Annihilation in 3 critical respects; unit formations, transport tech and automation.
Not having to babysit factories and LZ's was one of the most awesome things I've seen in years. Nothing, so far, has been more satisfying than being able to land an entire army (50-150 units, say) behind ennemy lines with fewer than 20 clicks of the mouse and continue shipping in units from central and SAFE production facilities located behind my forward lines...
THAT'S strategy baby!
I have to make my vote of Quintiscential RTS as being, well, Supreme Commander. Mostly for 2 reasons.
1. It does everything a Strategy Game should do, and does it RIGHT
and
2. It is actually closing in on a strategic level. (40 KM square maps vs. the absolutley pathetic map sizes for, well, every other game)
A game where air power is useful for more than just not being on the ground and where you can actually have RADAR with reasonably sensible range is amazing, and it certainly improves on Total Annihilation in 3 critical respects; unit formations, transport tech and automation.
Not having to babysit factories and LZ's was one of the most awesome things I've seen in years. Nothing, so far, has been more satisfying than being able to land an entire army (50-150 units, say) behind ennemy lines with fewer than 20 clicks of the mouse and continue shipping in units from central and SAFE production facilities located behind my forward lines...
THAT'S strategy baby!
I'm really impartial when it comes to this game. I chose "Not really, no" because although I think the game is good, I don't really think it's the "quintessential RTS".
Maybe I'm just biased. I grew up with C&C, and at the same time, I hate Blizzard in several ways.
All RTS games are strategic and involve skill. They all have many elements that a lot of others don't. It's not what makes them better than one another, it's what makes them unique.
Here's how I view it:
- Games like C&C are more tactful and require a balance in army, but lack finesse.
- StarCraft has a ton of unique strategies that can each ultimately be countered; it's a matter of choice.
- Dawn of War has an absolute ton of variety and has nearly limitless ways to engage your foe.
- Supreme Commander is... not a game I would recommend for anyone. I don't like it.
Although StarCraft has come out with a lot of patches for balancing and whatnot, Blizzard is also the only company that hasn't released anything actually 'new' in like 10 years. Yes, their games are fun, they're just not very creative. They basically have Diablo and Warcraft. Starcraft is Warcraft in space, and World of Warcrap is a mixture of Diablo and Warcraft.
Maybe I'm just biased. I grew up with C&C, and at the same time, I hate Blizzard in several ways.
All RTS games are strategic and involve skill. They all have many elements that a lot of others don't. It's not what makes them better than one another, it's what makes them unique.
Here's how I view it:
- Games like C&C are more tactful and require a balance in army, but lack finesse.
- StarCraft has a ton of unique strategies that can each ultimately be countered; it's a matter of choice.
- Dawn of War has an absolute ton of variety and has nearly limitless ways to engage your foe.
- Supreme Commander is... not a game I would recommend for anyone. I don't like it.
Although StarCraft has come out with a lot of patches for balancing and whatnot, Blizzard is also the only company that hasn't released anything actually 'new' in like 10 years. Yes, their games are fun, they're just not very creative. They basically have Diablo and Warcraft. Starcraft is Warcraft in space, and World of Warcrap is a mixture of Diablo and Warcraft.
blizzard games are all good
but i think the story mode for each team was too short, if you flick through the custom games lists there are hundreds of them and 80% of them nobody plays on and 10% nobody can find (like the veteran scenarios), that space on the disk should have been campaign levels i think.
and (randomly) i think jim raynor was awesome, i loved him
but i think the story mode for each team was too short, if you flick through the custom games lists there are hundreds of them and 80% of them nobody plays on and 10% nobody can find (like the veteran scenarios), that space on the disk should have been campaign levels i think.
and (randomly) i think jim raynor was awesome, i loved him
yes it was sort of annoying that you could only select 12 units at a time, it takes the game down a notch if you like to mass zerg unitsfacepalm said:What the hell was that wall of absolute crap.avykins said:
You said you love the zerg yet you hate carriers the most.
I have one word for you. Scourge.
People like you should not be playing RTS's, stick to FPS's thanks.
To get started I will inform you now that StarCraft was released in 1998, which happens to be 10 years (And a few days) ago, in turn many features in our modern RTS games couldn't be implemented at that time im going to quote a few people and get a good chunk of the comments out of the way for more valid arguments to be thrown across.
Also, my answer to the title is Yes, and I know how popular the game is in Korea
Enslave your units, I assume by that you mean the dark archon; mind control leaves them with 25 health and 100 energy at most (which leaves them easy prey for pretty much anything)
Carriers lets see. Defilers, Devourers, Scourge, Hydralisks in number Parasite to see their location, etc, every unit and tactic can be countered just a matter of knowing what to build and when.
Wow. Long 1st post, suppose ill add to this when I can be bothered.
Also, my answer to the title is Yes, and I know how popular the game is in Korea
I can easily agree that the pathfinding was terrible for StarCraft, even for games of its age, it did add new elements, but it helps to mention what was executed poorly.DEC_42 said:
For a game 10 years old which is still played en masse today, nothing groundbreaking eh?Jakkar said:
I will admit that Homeworld was awesome, great story and atmosphere, but all units (barring 2 for each side) were identical and the two different units were barely ever used, due to their lack of cost effectiveness.Chaos Marine said:
Hilarious, thanks for making my day.TheIceface said:
First off, Spell checker helps.avykins said:
Enslave your units, I assume by that you mean the dark archon; mind control leaves them with 25 health and 100 energy at most (which leaves them easy prey for pretty much anything)
Carriers lets see. Defilers, Devourers, Scourge, Hydralisks in number Parasite to see their location, etc, every unit and tactic can be countered just a matter of knowing what to build and when.
Perhaps it's personal feeling, or the fact that I don't have a monolith 9000 and can't play the game at full speed, but I find Supreme Commander too automated at times, although being able to zoom out to the entire mini-map and zoom in at another section is new and well executed and the game does have a great deal of strategy to it.Various People said:
Wow. Long 1st post, suppose ill add to this when I can be bothered.
There's no doubt that StarCraft was one of the most *influential* RTS games, whether or not people liked playing it. It was a ground-breaking RTS, probably one of the three or four that really changed the way that RTS games are designed and played. I wouldn't call it "quintessential" and there's certainly lots of room for people to decide whether or not it's the "best" example of an RTS game.
StarCraft's main contribution is that it broke away from the "carbon-copy factions" model; in previous RTS games, the sides were almost identical, maybe with a unique unit or two thrown in for flavor. What StarCraft did was demonstrate that the sides can be very different. The original plans for StarCraft were to have each race use a different set of resources. Blizzard recanted on that one, but the races all have different strengths and weaknesses, relying more or less on certain types of strategies.
- Alan
StarCraft's main contribution is that it broke away from the "carbon-copy factions" model; in previous RTS games, the sides were almost identical, maybe with a unique unit or two thrown in for flavor. What StarCraft did was demonstrate that the sides can be very different. The original plans for StarCraft were to have each race use a different set of resources. Blizzard recanted on that one, but the races all have different strengths and weaknesses, relying more or less on certain types of strategies.
- Alan