It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
if you liked warcraft 3... youll know why starcraft is good.
kerrigan - arthas.
zergs - undead scourge.
last stand against zerg - last stand against scourge+burning legion.
as stupid as it sounds.... most of the w3 and wow was built on the storyline of starcraft.
sorry, but its true
as for game itself... well it has one thing that no one managed to achieve ever again - different races yet balanced.
the different races themselves is a very original thing and there wasnt a game before that tried doing that... now they tried warhammer 40k, company of heroes etc... all fine etc... not balanced tho.
basically the first rts to have many elements that 99% of rtses try to achieve to this very day.
Donr forget to watch the 4 Starcraft 2 battle reports to see this bad boy in action #4 is my fav http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/4.xml
Starcraft was polished when it was released, had the name "Blizzard" tagged on and already a lot of fans.
Starcraft was good, but ..... real men were playing Total Annihilation (the predecessor of Supreme Commander) which was released at about the same time in 1997. I mean it got rated as the best RTS of it's time, better than Starcraft, by gamespot, and is on the list of the 50 best games ever released. It had so many great features that I still long for in games, and it's even now still played, 13 years after release.
I could write a book about how great TA is, with it's myriads of incredible features, but I will spare you that.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I guess to most people it's nothing new or that "great", but for hardcore RTS players Starcraft rests in a whole nother league compared to other RTS titles.
First off, gameplay is much faster in StarCraft than other RTS titles. Timing isn't as crucial in campaign mode, but personal micro control ability in multiplayer is very important.
People think of RTS having limited control ability when it comes to single unit management, but StarCraft put that in a totally different perspective.
There's no doubt the game is extremely well balanced. Each race doesn't really overpower the other, and the outcome of duels always depend on micro control ability and gameplan of the player.
There's also a big difference in StarCraft and most other RTS games. More overpowered units or number doesn't necessarily decide the outcome of the game. There are so many situational and backstabbing strategies in the game, that literally you can come back from nothing.
If anyone has seen SlayerBoxer micromanage his marine units...they know StarCraft's unit management and controls are literally ridiculous.
I have yet to see an emphasis on such controls in WarCraft series, C&C, or any other RTS games.
Last but not least, if anyone has played StarCraft at a competitive level, it is extremely difficult to pick up another RTS title. Other RTS titles just seem "too slow" and not as strategic. One reason why I couldn't pick up WarCraft 3 was because the gameplay speed was just too slow and dull for me. WarCraft 3 was very linear, the fact that it was almost all micromanagement and no strategic gameplay.
Heroes in WC3 don't count for me. I don't really understand why developers keep adding Hero units to their RTS games. I really don't think it did anything revolutionary to the genre, but cause imbalances between different factions and races.
GRIND sucks? You wanna be max level in a month? Since when did society award easy-goers and lazy-fools?MAKES ME PHOBIC OF STUPIDITY!
Remember that back then there were not many true multiplayer games and most of them were either not well made or were a bit awkward to get into a online game.
Blizzard provided a game that was ballanced and looked and sounded good [which was rare back then in a online Multiplayer game] had some interesting factions and the the online access was very easy to get into.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Originally posted by tro44_1 I hear alot of hype on Starcraft, but whats so big about it?I played WC3 and liked it alot!!!!!!!!What makes SC better?iam thinking about downloaded it from Blizzard, but still kinda debateing out it.
I work with two people who were SC fanatics,it was their favorite game.
They said it was because you could have user created content,i think that is how they worded it,or you could create the setup of the game,so it was not a generic setup,you had control of the game.I never played it personally,i do know i don't like Blizzard's famous overhead view,i think they copied that idea from CnC games from days of old.
Personally from the many videos i have seen,outside of customization of game,it looks no different than playing that old Buck Rogers game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Wizardry Originally posted by tro44_1 I hear alot of hype on Starcraft, but whats so big about it?I played WC3 and liked it alot!!!!!!!!What makes SC better?iam thinking about downloaded it from Blizzard, but still kinda debateing out it.
Nope, the isometric view was being used in RTSes long before Command & Conquer, including the original WarCraft.
Wait for Starcraft 2. It looks totally amazing.
It's just wc3 with guns and explosions
When the stress burns my brain it's like acid raindrops. Where do I turn to make the pain stop?
The game has lasted because of fixed variables. The game is like Chess, there are defined rules to chess, no player can break them, no player can have an advantage. First off, the game is set to 640x480 and thats for two reasons. One is because the game engine was built back in 1996-97 which 640x480 was good enough for visuals and performance. Now its 2008 the game is still updated but they haven't allowed higher resolutions. This is because it would give an unfair balance to one of the players who could possibly see more on his/her screen, thus giving someone a possible advantage. Another set variable is theres no chance in this game. Theres no 15% chance of doing 50% damage. Now if you tell me what about putting a unit on higher ground, that gives 25% more damage or something, but thats fixed variable, unlike Warcraft 3 which actually has chance built in, for example critical strike, 15% chance of doing twice the damage. Basically a roll of dice and anything is possible, Starcraft doesn't have this.Another fixed variable is that no matter what, when a unit attacks, the other unit takes damage. Unlike Command & Conquer where it was possible to miss an enemy. In Starcraft a Siege tank will hit its target no matter what, you can miss, but also you cant force attack the ground and attempt to hit cloaked units.Unfortunately, most people these days on Bnet play either BGH with unlimited minerals or Zero Clutter maps which is basically fast resources. Unlimited minerals and Fast Minerals makes the unbalanced, not by much, but a good player will know how to exploit those gameplay methods. The only way to play a fair game of Starcraft is on balanced map with fixed resources that can deplete.Theres more then this. And Warcraft 3 actually works with the "dice roll" of chance but thats because I believe its programmed in that no matter what. If you have a 10% chance of doing a critical strike, no matter what, 1 out of 10 hits will be a critical strike no matter what, but now throw in some luck . But in the end, the game was designed like chess, you have set rules, they cant be broken, and the only way to take advantage is by strategy, just like in Chess.
Starcraft is a good game. I've played it on the Nintendo 64 since I was a boy, and I play it now on the computer. It's a very good game with a good storyline and gameplay. It's also a sport in Korea. My favorate player is JaeDong