Well said. There are RTS's which are much more fun out there, which is what the majority of gamers will want. But from the purist, pedantic aspergersy perspective, it's probably the more 'pure' RTS, or at least high amongst 'em.Nine of Hearts said:
Poll: Is StarCraft really the quintessential RTS?
- Thread starter Usige Beatha
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I tried to explain to you that ling rush is not overpowering, can be defended easily, and leaves the attacker vulnerable to a counter-attack, but I guess you're too noob to understand this. Now, as a major noob, do you really think you are the appropriate person to judge about the balance of Starcraft when thousands of Pro-gamers think otherwise? Like some person before me correctly posted, the sole fact that both casual, amateur and pro players are all evenly divided amongst the three races proves that Sc is balanced. And I don't even know why we're talking about this, when everyone in the world will agree that Blizzard, out of all software houses has put the most effort in this like no other developer has done before. So just because you suck at this game, don't try to blame the game itself, maybe its just you doing all the sucking.
And what's with that example with a retarded monkey beating Kobe in basketball? Next time you want to come up with an analogy, make sure its a valid one, cause the only thing retarded here is your examples..
I mentioned starcraft tournaments to prove that if ling rush was indeed "overpowered and unsportsmanslike", the pro-games above all who would do anything for a win would frequently use it. I don't really give 2 fucks if you're watching sc matches or not so you totally missed the point. If, after all this, you still want to insist that ling rush is overpowering and contributes to an 'unbalanced' Starcraft, then you're just an idiot sticking to his point with nothing to back it up.
Oh, so I shouldn't watch Starcraft matches then? Good, cause I make most of me decisions based on your opinion.. You know what, I'm thinking of splitting up with the wife, maybe you can think that one over and get back to me..
I agree, at least in theory. Then again, it had a huge number of bugs and only one side was worth using. But add in any of the mods and it became waaaay better than Starcraft. And now that TA Spring is out...
Of course, TA wasn't quite the quintessential RTS. Almost no special abilities, no cap on how many units you could order at a time, odd construction rules, unique approach to resources, etc.
Of course, TA wasn't quite the quintessential RTS. Almost no special abilities, no cap on how many units you could order at a time, odd construction rules, unique approach to resources, etc.
Larry Laffer,
I believe you are grossly misinterpreting the other guy's point. Sure, a zerg rush is pretty easy to defend against. I've even fended off my fair share of them, and I am possibly the worst player I know. Still, the fact that such a simple rush maneuver exists and is used far too often in casual online play, NOT tournament play, is simply annoying as hell. It's also why I haven't played the game in a few years. So, maybe that fact has changed.
As for balance, I agree that the game very well may be the most balanced RTS out there, but I still see one gaping issue. Perhaps this has been resolved, but when I was playing, you could use a Dark Archon to take control of an enemy's SCV and whatever the Zerg builder unit is called and start building Terran and Zerg Units as well. I don't believe you can truly call a game's races balanced if only one of the three gives you a chance (small as it may be) to control all three races in the game.
I believe you are grossly misinterpreting the other guy's point. Sure, a zerg rush is pretty easy to defend against. I've even fended off my fair share of them, and I am possibly the worst player I know. Still, the fact that such a simple rush maneuver exists and is used far too often in casual online play, NOT tournament play, is simply annoying as hell. It's also why I haven't played the game in a few years. So, maybe that fact has changed.
As for balance, I agree that the game very well may be the most balanced RTS out there, but I still see one gaping issue. Perhaps this has been resolved, but when I was playing, you could use a Dark Archon to take control of an enemy's SCV and whatever the Zerg builder unit is called and start building Terran and Zerg Units as well. I don't believe you can truly call a game's races balanced if only one of the three gives you a chance (small as it may be) to control all three races in the game.
Alright I had a very long post written trying to explain how the tactic can be seen as unfair, but I figured nobody would read it, so here is the short version:Larry Laffer said:
I view the move as unfair. Contrary to your belief I am actually fairly skilled at the game(or I was before I got tired of it), and I can defend against the move. However its a hassle, and is so widely used that it rips all the fun from the game. Which is why I've moved on to more interesting and balanced games, not because starcraft is old, but because it is so abused.
In addition to me, I'd be willing to wager that a majority of the people who have played the game agree with me about the balance of the move. There are countless rants and raves all across these tubes we call the internet about how irritating the move is. In fact, you are one of the very few people I've run across who disagree.
I have friends who play the game (I'm in China right now, they're a bit behind in the times when it comes to games, so this is the hot new item.) I even have friends who torment others with the zergling rush crap. They use the move, but at least they're honest enough to admit that its not very fair.
Larry Laffer said:
me said:
Thats handy, I don't think I'd accept even 1 fuck from you, although you do seem charming.Larry Laffer said:
****SARCASM ALERT***Larry Laffer said:
Oh, sorry I had an opinion based on fact. I'll try harder to ignore common sense and reality next time.
I dunno, how hot is she? (Ba-dum tshh)Larry Laffer said:
You have no idea how hard I had to restrain myself from saying something really witty, mean, and funny right now.
I...I...can't...resist....obvious..target....
*GASP*
Do not divorce your wife, don't do it man. Bad idea. You're not going to find another woman willing to put up with you. In fact I have doubts that you even have a wife.
(That wasn't nice, I already feel awful using an unfair tactic against you. Its not very gentlemanly of me.) <<[Irony is here.]
heheheTheIceface said:
the first protoss attack (12 zealots or so) i find impossible to defend against they are just too strong and i start slow...
need hints incase i play it again
I have found that the best way to win in starcraft (or any game) is to make sure you play against a competitor in close enough proximity that you can bean them with a lamp, or swat them across the mouth with a bat, if they start winning.
Or... if you prefer playing as the spy/engineer in TF2 rather than the soldier/heavy, you can go out back and mess with the circuit breakers. If they're computer goes off in a "freak accident' you win by default. Claim "divine intervention", God obviously wanted you to beat your friend in that computer game.
Or... if you prefer playing as the spy/engineer in TF2 rather than the soldier/heavy, you can go out back and mess with the circuit breakers. If they're computer goes off in a "freak accident' you win by default. Claim "divine intervention", God obviously wanted you to beat your friend in that computer game.
I can't believe it took a full 2 pages, the quintessential RTS is Dune 2 because it defined the RTS genre so it is by default the purest representation of the genre.The_root_of_all_evil said:
While Herzog Zwei was an undeniably influential game that laid the foundations for Dune 2 and the RTS genre the reason I say Dune 2 defined the RTS genre was the inclusion of base building which is an integral part of RTS games today.Nine of Hearts said:
The Zergling rush is no more than an annoyance, although it does force you to always immediately have some defence, which isn't a bad idea anyways. I know the computer's damn good at it, but with a little speedy building the six zerglings usually don't do anything besides kill maybe one marine or whatever.
I did vote Starcraft as the quintessential RPG, just because I've always found its strategies to be more in-depth. All units have a use into the end of the game, all units have a strength and all have a weakness. The sides are the most balanced I've ever seen in a game. The only thing that can really unbalance a side is when Protoss get an enemy worker and have 400 supply eventually, but that takes a lot of work and you were probably done anyways.
I did vote Starcraft as the quintessential RPG, just because I've always found its strategies to be more in-depth. All units have a use into the end of the game, all units have a strength and all have a weakness. The sides are the most balanced I've ever seen in a game. The only thing that can really unbalance a side is when Protoss get an enemy worker and have 400 supply eventually, but that takes a lot of work and you were probably done anyways.
As an RTS-inclined gamer, I treat Starcraft and Broodwar with lots of respect, and I can't wait for SC2 to hit the shelves.
It is one of the best games ever made, let alone compared to other RTS's, and is arguably the most well-balanced game ever made. I still play it from time to time and continue to enjoy it as I ever have.
Is it the quintessential RTS, though? No, it isn't. Of course, my answer will depend on my explanation, and some would have a contrary opinion to mine according to my translation, but that's not for me to judge, so on to it, then:
The reason I do not consider Starcraft, or any of the RTS games Blizzard has made so far (since they have all followed the same formula) a pure RTS is that one cannot influence or control the circumstances of one's battles. Compare, for example, the multiplayer modes of Starcraft with those of Rome: Total War. In Starcraft, everyone starts with a set command centre and a set amount of worker units at a roughly equal part of the map. Everyone is equal and starts the battle at level ground with his/her opponents/allies. In Rome: Total War everyone starts with equal amounts of _money_ with which they buy various types and amounts of units and upgrades. Upon entering the map (which is uneven and oftentimes favourable towards a player or a team), every player is assigned an area on which the forces assigned to them can be placed and prepared before the battle even starts. No one knows how the battle will look like before it starts because no one can see the opponent's units being placed before the clock starts ticking.
R:TW's method brings with it a type of map-reading, quick-thinking and versatility that I believe are core qualities of a great tactician and strategist. Upon discovering where one will start compared to one's opponent, the player will have to formulate a strategy of careful frontal confrontation, attrition and skirmishing, flanking and trickiness, or the application of brute force. This does not exist in Starcraft, where most maps are more or less symmetrical and provide equal opportunity for both players. There is less skill and versatile quick-thinking required to win a Starcraft match. The fact that most multiplayer games end within the first few minutes attests to this, as many players know exactly what they were going to do coming into the match. The game becomes more reflexive and base than intellectual and complicated.
I believe a true great strategist must be able to carve out victory from some of the worst of circumstances. There are no bad circumstances in arcadish RTS's such as Starcraft. While there is the argument that starting on even ground with one's opponent narrows down the randomness in a battle and shows that the winner was the person with most skill. I do not challenge this notion as I agree with it, but I believe that in such environments it is not a tactician that is needed, but a man with quick fingers on the keyboard. There's much less creativity involved in a game of Starcraft, even at high levels, compared to the kind one witnesses in Rome: Total War, where you can hide forces in forested areas; take note of enemy unit fatigue; use height to overpower your opponent; take advantage of a morale system, and have a single faction able to bring to bear many types of fundamentally different armies.
Starcraft involves a rudimentary factor of height as a ranged unit will routinely miss an attack at a set percentage if attacking an enemy up a hill, and it does allow some factions to wield somewhat different forces, but I do not believe that this is enough to make a player have to think about positioning and choice of units.
Most of the Starcraft matches I've seen at high level involve players who play roughly the same way; victory falls down to whoever does so faster and better. A battle of skill? Yes, but not of strategy. This also attests to what I've said.
---
That said, some people will prefer such a game as Starcraft over one like Rome: Total War, and I tend to waver. The question, however, was whether or not Starcraft is the quintessential RTS, not whether or not it is a good one. That is out of the question as Starcraft is nearly perfect unto itself.
It is one of the best games ever made, let alone compared to other RTS's, and is arguably the most well-balanced game ever made. I still play it from time to time and continue to enjoy it as I ever have.
Is it the quintessential RTS, though? No, it isn't. Of course, my answer will depend on my explanation, and some would have a contrary opinion to mine according to my translation, but that's not for me to judge, so on to it, then:
The reason I do not consider Starcraft, or any of the RTS games Blizzard has made so far (since they have all followed the same formula) a pure RTS is that one cannot influence or control the circumstances of one's battles. Compare, for example, the multiplayer modes of Starcraft with those of Rome: Total War. In Starcraft, everyone starts with a set command centre and a set amount of worker units at a roughly equal part of the map. Everyone is equal and starts the battle at level ground with his/her opponents/allies. In Rome: Total War everyone starts with equal amounts of _money_ with which they buy various types and amounts of units and upgrades. Upon entering the map (which is uneven and oftentimes favourable towards a player or a team), every player is assigned an area on which the forces assigned to them can be placed and prepared before the battle even starts. No one knows how the battle will look like before it starts because no one can see the opponent's units being placed before the clock starts ticking.
R:TW's method brings with it a type of map-reading, quick-thinking and versatility that I believe are core qualities of a great tactician and strategist. Upon discovering where one will start compared to one's opponent, the player will have to formulate a strategy of careful frontal confrontation, attrition and skirmishing, flanking and trickiness, or the application of brute force. This does not exist in Starcraft, where most maps are more or less symmetrical and provide equal opportunity for both players. There is less skill and versatile quick-thinking required to win a Starcraft match. The fact that most multiplayer games end within the first few minutes attests to this, as many players know exactly what they were going to do coming into the match. The game becomes more reflexive and base than intellectual and complicated.
I believe a true great strategist must be able to carve out victory from some of the worst of circumstances. There are no bad circumstances in arcadish RTS's such as Starcraft. While there is the argument that starting on even ground with one's opponent narrows down the randomness in a battle and shows that the winner was the person with most skill. I do not challenge this notion as I agree with it, but I believe that in such environments it is not a tactician that is needed, but a man with quick fingers on the keyboard. There's much less creativity involved in a game of Starcraft, even at high levels, compared to the kind one witnesses in Rome: Total War, where you can hide forces in forested areas; take note of enemy unit fatigue; use height to overpower your opponent; take advantage of a morale system, and have a single faction able to bring to bear many types of fundamentally different armies.
Starcraft involves a rudimentary factor of height as a ranged unit will routinely miss an attack at a set percentage if attacking an enemy up a hill, and it does allow some factions to wield somewhat different forces, but I do not believe that this is enough to make a player have to think about positioning and choice of units.
Most of the Starcraft matches I've seen at high level involve players who play roughly the same way; victory falls down to whoever does so faster and better. A battle of skill? Yes, but not of strategy. This also attests to what I've said.
---
That said, some people will prefer such a game as Starcraft over one like Rome: Total War, and I tend to waver. The question, however, was whether or not Starcraft is the quintessential RTS, not whether or not it is a good one. That is out of the question as Starcraft is nearly perfect unto itself.
That's exactly what I'm saying, if a map isn't designed right the terrain alone can yield one race to be constantly overpowering. And there are a lot of Blizzard standard maps where imbalances in the game are just blown out of proportion by the terrain alone. The reason progamers never play on LT anymore is because it favors Terran, if you look at the map there are numerous points in which it is easy for a Terran player to exploit terrain (which is also why theres like 40 revisions to the map). In some situations Terrans can force a player to be closed into his base until he can transport a substantial amount of units out to break his siege (ie 3 vs 12).GloatingSwine said:
Grand armies? Starcraft you're not getting 'grand armies' but you are often amassing large amounts of units in short periods of time and attacking. If you're so pathetic you can't survive a Zergling rush (which was permanently nerfed when spawning pools were made 200 minerals over 10 patches ago) you'll probably never realize this though.TheIceface said:
You'll find a lot of huge army battles in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xeq_eVZc_s
I believe you're thinking of APM (actions per minute) not CPM. And its not APM or CPM that decides who wins in a Starcraft match. I've seen progamers with 60 or less APM beat progamers with 400 or more. It all amounts to the strategy and tactics they use.The_root_of_all_evil said:
You're not getting it. Zergling rush is NOT an "overpowered maneuver". The balance in 'craft is as close to perfect as any RTS has ever come, and there's simply no excuse for getting raped by zerglings and bitching about how "overpowered" they are. Zealot rush can be just as effective as zerglings, and so can a marine/medic rush. And zergling rush is also painfully easy to defend against, all you need is some zlots or firebats, depending which race you're playing.TheIceface said:
And as for having a 'craft tournament where "everyone is using zergling rush"...it simply doesn't happen. At high level play, zergling rush rarely happens, and even more rarely succeeds. The obvious answer as to why this is? It SIMPLY ISN'T EFFECTIVE. If a tactic isn't effective enough in high-level play to be abused frequently, it clearly isn't overpowered. That's the most concise and concrete evidence of something being balanced that you will ever find, is when it is not abused in high-level competitive play.
I'm shocked at how so many people here are stalwartly defending the zergling rush. I didn't know about the patch because I haven't played the game in many years, but when I did play I got zergling rushed all the time. I usually fought it off, but it's still annoying as hell.
Still, no one has attempted to defend the fact that in brood war, protoss are inherently overpowered because they can take control of an SCV and the zerg builder and have all three bases. It'd be fine if the other races had ways to do that, but they don't. So, the game is unbalanced as it lets you pull crap like that. Maybe they've fixed that in the 10+ patches since I've played. I'd like an update on that.
I will say that SC probably is the quintessential RTS though. I mena it's spawning so much debate 10 years after its release. It's the third RTS I played. The first two were warcraft 1 and 2. But whenever someone says RTS I think of Starcraft and I get a little sick to my stomach and change the subject. Starcraft has forever ruined the genre of RTS for me. Which is sad becuase my machine can run supreme commander and the newest command and conquer quite well, but I just don't enjoy them. Now, my favorite game of of all time if Heroes of Might and Magic 3 with all the expansions. So, I loved turn based strategy/rpgs.
Still, no one has attempted to defend the fact that in brood war, protoss are inherently overpowered because they can take control of an SCV and the zerg builder and have all three bases. It'd be fine if the other races had ways to do that, but they don't. So, the game is unbalanced as it lets you pull crap like that. Maybe they've fixed that in the 10+ patches since I've played. I'd like an update on that.
I will say that SC probably is the quintessential RTS though. I mena it's spawning so much debate 10 years after its release. It's the third RTS I played. The first two were warcraft 1 and 2. But whenever someone says RTS I think of Starcraft and I get a little sick to my stomach and change the subject. Starcraft has forever ruined the genre of RTS for me. Which is sad becuase my machine can run supreme commander and the newest command and conquer quite well, but I just don't enjoy them. Now, my favorite game of of all time if Heroes of Might and Magic 3 with all the expansions. So, I loved turn based strategy/rpgs.
Protoss being able to take over units has never had any effect on any games I've ever played on bnet. The tech tree and resources to get Dark Archons, which are what let you take over other units, is so long and expensive that no one ever does it. If you try and tech rush to DAs, you'll get raped before you get there 99% of the time.brenflood said:
As for zergling rush, they made Spawning Pool cost 200 in the patches, so you can't rush zerglings nearly as fast anymore, nullifying whatever overpowering advantages it may have had. It's a perfectly legit and balanced tactic in 1.15, I don't know why people still complain about it. Maybe they're playing singleplayer 1.0 with no internet connection or something.