Poll: Is StarCraft really the quintessential RTS?

[DEC_42]

(Sorry for the chronologically incorrect post up there)

GordonFawx had some good points with SupCom, by using infiltration techniques, and smooth unit/building ordering, the pace of the game goes more fluidly.

Omega, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that the pathfinding element was very skewed. That's one of the elements I meant. The interface was one of the clunkiest I've used.

Also, I concur that Homeworld was beast.

 

[Z4N5H1N]

Starcraft IS balanced, you don't see this unless you watch the competitions and tournaments. It really is balanced and you obviously have never played it if you disagree.

Two words: Zergling Rush.


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're digging yourself an even deeper hole here, bud. There's nothing overpowered about zergling rushes, and they can be countered easily by terran or protoss.

Once again: If you don't play a game at a relatively high skill-level, don't ***** about balance issues. You just make yourself look stupid.

 

[Orion Magus]

I'm curious as to why people keep mentioning how careful Blizzard was to not break any new ground and just polish the same old ideas. I mean if you take a good idea and smooth a few of the wrinkles in it, or even just shinny it up a bit, that makes it no worse; Indeed it even makes it better (maybe only marginally, but better nonetheless) than the original template.

So when its asked is Starcraft the shizzle, the short answer is yes because it took all those ideas everyone likes (and by everyone i mean the majority of players and if you think it doesn't the sales figures should speak for themselves) and packaged them together well.

Is there room for improvement... absolutely. Starcraft is by no means the end of what the RTS genre will become, but it is the best I've seen so far.

Speaking of RTS's was I the only one who was horribly disappointed in the new Warhammer RTS and subsequent expansions thereupon?

 

[Xhumed]

TA Total Anialation, does anyone remember that wonderfull game. Not the best graphics but surely some fo the best gameplay ever.

I'm sorry, i never really liked TA. much as i love big stompy robots, it just never grabbed me. I much prefered C&C (prefer Red Alert to the normal C&C however). My first RTS was Dune 2, which hooked me. I loved the Warcraft series too. As for Starcraft, well, meh, to be honest. It was ok, just never quite clicked with it.

 

[Xhumed]

For a game 10 years old which is still played en masse today, nothing groundbreaking eh?

Doesn't make it ground-breaking, just makes it popular. X Factor is still popular, but it's hardly ground-breaking (apologies to people who don't know what X Factor is- think American Idol et al and you'll have it)

 

[TheIceface]

Once again: If you don't play a game at a relatively high skill-level, don't ***** about balance issues. You just make yourself look stupid.

So unless you're the best, you shouldn't be able to form opinions about the mechanics of a game. Just because it can be countered doesn't mean it isn't a load of steaming doggy doo-doo.

I'll put things in perspective with a prime example, Zergling Rush is like the AWP/Autosniper. It requires a minimal amount of talent to make it excruciatingly effective. In the cases of ZR and AWP/AS, it is possible to win, but its not about winning, its about evening the odds without taking individual player skill into the equation.

The better player should win, not the one who uses and abuses the easy way all the time. Claiming that you have skill when you use any of the previously mentioned off-balance weapons/tactics is like claiming you're a war hero by running over a pile of blind/deaf/paralyzed babies with a tank. Its not cheating, but it sure as hell isn't fair, and by all means isn't very sporting.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

CPM =/= Greatest Skill

CPM = Winner on StarCraft

(clicks per minute)

So, tactics don't really come into SC more than Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[kippers and biscuits]

CPM =/= Greatest Skill

CPM = Winner on StarCraft

(clicks per minute)

So, tactics don't really come into SC more than Rock, Paper, Scissors.

That make sense if it was just random clicking but the reality is, starcraft is anything but. StarCraft is just one of those special games that stands the test of time- partly because it hasn't been marred by hundreds of samey sequals but also because the gameplay it offers provides a unique experience. In my opinion starcraft is still the measure of a good RTS and I can't wait for StarCraft two.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But still, Greater CPM means more wins. A brief understanding of Tanks beat Tentacles but lose to Zerglings is all you need on the field of tactics; anything else just comes from fast spawn and defending your spawn.

As for unique, why did Dune 2 come before that with almost the same sort of play?

 

[Z4N5H1N]

Once again: If you don't play a game at a relatively high skill-level, don't ***** about balance issues. You just make yourself look stupid.

So unless you're the best, you shouldn't be able to form opinions about the mechanics of a game. Just because it can be countered doesn't mean it isn't a load of steaming doggy doo-doo.

I'll put things in perspective with a prime example, Zergling Rush is like the AWP/Autosniper. It requires a minimal amount of talent to make it excruciatingly effective. In the cases of ZR and AWP/AS, it is possible to win, but its not about winning, its about evening the odds without taking individual player skill into the equation.

The better player should win, not the one who uses and abuses the easy way all the time. Claiming that you have skill when you use any of the previously mentioned off-balance weapons/tactics is like claiming you're a war hero by running over a pile of blind/deaf/paralyzed babies with a tank. Its not cheating, but it sure as hell isn't fair, and by all means isn't very sporting.

And yet, AWP is still allowed in competitive CS play, so clearly it isn't an issue.

Having a certain tactic that takes less skill doesn't matter in competitive play, because everyone playing has the skill to use other, more advanced tactics. And there are plenty of the aforementioned advanced tactics that will rape zergling rush consistently, so it's a moot point.

Bottom line, if you think zergling rush is cheap or overpowered, you're a noob at 'Craft and should be playing it more instead of bitching about it in forums.

 

[Wolvaroo]

The only thing unbalanced about starcraft is the computer's omniscience (which becomes moot once you survive the first rush)

 

[TheIceface]

Bottom line, if you think zergling rush is cheap or overpowered, you're a noob at 'Craft and should be playing it more instead of bitching about it in forums.

I still don't see why being annoyed at an overpowered maneuver makes me a noob. If anything I've played the game tons, enough to master many different tactics that I can use to defeat my enemy through fair play. The noobs would be the ones who are new to the game, find one move that works almost all the time, and use it without becoming anymore advanced in the game.

As for AWP in competitive play, yes, they are allowed in some games. Some games restrict the amount so not everyone on both teams buys an overpowered weapon making the game a campfest. Some games don't allow the gun at all, these are where you see the really talented people playing.

Same thing goes with Starcraft, if you have a tournament where everyone is using zergling rush left and right, you don't have a competition to find the best player, you have a party of retards with an unbalanced move under their belts seeing who can pull it off first. I always view strategy games as ones where the players have to update their strategy based on their competition, not games where the goal is to pull of 1 tactic as quickly as possible on every competitor.

Try pulling that crap in chess (I think everyone can agree that chess is a well balanced strategy game) and you'll be outed as as no-skill retard faster than a WoW player can suggest "Lets go farm!"

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Eh, I guess it isn't anymore - we've really moved on though so it's a hard question to answer. I'd say no but I can't deny that it's basically the father of RTS - right next to C&C, Total Annihilation, and AoE - but now with SoaSE, WiC, CoH, DoW, Medieval 2: TW, Rome: TW, Supcom....it's hard to say.

 

[OmegaTalon]

For a game 10 years old which is still played en masse today, nothing groundbreaking eh?

Doesn't make it ground-breaking, just makes it popular. X Factor is still popular, but it's hardly ground-breaking (apologies to people who don't know what X Factor is- think American Idol et al and you'll have it)

Your comparing a TV show to a PC Game, two completely different things, and I've yet to see any other games strategy games keep going strong for 10 years.

CPM =/= Greatest Skill

CPM = Winner on StarCraft

(clicks per minute)

So, tactics don't really come into SC more than Rock, Paper, Scissors.

I beat people who click well over double the amount I do all the time, sure APM (its actually called Actions Per Minute) matters quite a lot, but in no case does it decide the game.

 

[Iron Mal]

I got starcraft thinking 'a Sci-Fi RTS with space marines in chunky armor blowing up aliens? cool!' (like most 12 year olds would think at the time) but overall, while the concept was alright, design pretty cool and the storyline was expansive it had several issues dragging along.
I found that I could only control a maximum of 12 guys at one time, while this is fine for the more elite armies who cost so much that you force will probably consist of less than 10 guys but the more 'horde' based army suffered greatly for this, larger battles where the other guys had tanks and aircraft became almost impossible because you had to spend about 5 minutes telling everyone what to do by which time your minions will have been well and truely wiped off the face of the earth (or what ever planet your fighting over).

 

[Larry Laffer]

I still don't see why being annoyed at an overpowered maneuver makes me a noob.

It makes you a noob because you haven't yet developed the skill to counter a ling rush. 99% of the people in Battlenet can defend a ling rush effeciently with their eyes closed, and will then have the game advantage because the zerg player would have a bad eco (economy) which would take a lot of time to recover from. And even if you don't play in Battlenet casually but just with other noob friends in a LAN, it doesn't take a lot of brain (or skill) to build up a barrack+bunker+1 marine+1 scv to repair bunker, to counter a ling rush, and that is why he's calling you a noob

if you have a tournament where everyone is using zergling rush left and right, you don't have a competition to find the best player, you have a party of retards with an unbalanced move under their belts seeing who can pull it off first.

You've obviously not watched many starcraft tournaments then, cause at of the hundred matches I've seen posted in youtube or starcraft replays, no one ever ever used ling rush. By the time it takes for the scout to reach the enemy base (and every progamer will use a scout before blindly attacking), it will be too late for a ling rush anyway.


Starcraft is indeed the quintessential RTS, as in a Real Time Strategy game. Beautiful sceneries such as in AOE 3 don't make a strategy game, neither is the obsession on other RTS games with vast unit varieties and complex building and tech trees such as Empire Earth 2 and 3 (although EE1 was ok). A Strategy game should be about balance, good game management(always maintain an eco and army that ties with your opponent) and quick thinking (where the term 'Real Time' comes in) which translates to good micro'ing of your units.


And for the poster of this thread, if you have time to waste making a thread on bushing a game you don't like, then I'm sure you'll have time to watch a video of it that will show you what Starcraft is all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sg2CR4Eqn4

Play close attention to the commentary, and tell me if you've seen another RTS game with the same strategic depth, if not with a crowd-packed stadium cheering for their favorite Pro-gamer, whom btw clears $300k a year(more than the highest executive producer makes in Blizzard Co).

 

[OmegaTalon]

I found that I could only control a maximum of 12 guys at one time, while this is fine for the more elite armies who cost so much that you force will probably consist of less than 10 guys but the more 'horde' based army suffered greatly for this, larger battles where the other guys had tanks and aircraft became almost impossible because you had to spend about 5 minutes telling everyone what to do by which time your minions will have been well and truely wiped off the face of the earth (or what ever planet your fighting over).

Use hotkeys, 5 hotkeys = 60 units selected + moved/attacking in 5 seconds, around 5 extra to hotkey properly.

 

[Xhumed]

For a game 10 years old which is still played en masse today, nothing groundbreaking eh?

Doesn't make it ground-breaking, just makes it popular. X Factor is still popular, but it's hardly ground-breaking (apologies to people who don't know what X Factor is- think American Idol et al and you'll have it)

Your comparing a TV show to a PC Game, two completely different things, and I've yet to see any other games strategy games keep going strong for 10 years.

no i'm pointing out popular doesnt always equal best. It's true of PC games as much as everything else. Starcraft isn't even close to being the quintessential RTS.

 

[TheIceface]

I still don't see why being annoyed at an overpowered maneuver makes me a noob.

It makes you a noob because you haven't yet developed the skill to counter a ling rush. 99% of the people in Battlenet can defend a ling rush effeciently with their eyes closed, and will then have the game advantage because the zerg player would have a bad eco (economy) which would take a lot of time to recover from.

Once again, just because you can defend against the maneuver doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Its possible for a retarded monkey to defeat Kobe in a basketball match, it doesn't mean it isn't slightly unbalanced.

You've obviously not watched many starcraft tournaments then, cause at of the hundred matches

I have to say, you've got me there, I haven't watched any, that would be degrading. No, I like to play games, I can learn from experience, but I don't even see how it is possible for anyone to sit through starcfaft matches. Its like watching the superbowl (which I also don't do), only its two people you've never heard of, and don't care about, doing something that you could do yourself instead of watching them.

My main point is that the move is overpowered, albeit beatable, and unsportsmanlike. On top of that its so overused that its not even worth logging on to battlenet anymore, odds are you're run into a Korean/Chinese guy who does zergling rush and quitting mid-game if it doesn't work.

My second point is that watching matches of starcraft makes you a total nerd (in a bad way) like watching Nascar makes you a hillbilly-redneck (in a "Deliverance" sort of way.)

Oh, and Warcraft 1 and 2 were better.

 

[Nine of Hearts]

Quintessential is 'purest form of', really. So the question, IMO, is not whether Starcraft is the best RTS but the most 'RTSy', if that makes any sense.

I'd say so. AFAIK, Starcraft is the most popular RTS in existence. The only thing that even approaches (or surpasses, I dunno) it is Warcraft 3, which is made by the same company and uses the same design standards. Because so many people play it, most of them define 'RTS' as 'game like Starcraft'. Thus, it is pretty much quintessential.

Again, I'm not saying that Starcraft is the best RTS. I personally hate it, and I vastly prefer games like TA Spring, Metal Fatigue, and Sacrifice. There are many, many more revolutionary games. But today, a lot of those games are revolutionary because they 'aren't like Starcraft'. So Starcraft is the quintessential RTS, due to its popularity and image.