Starcraft?

[Lock]

Come on people liked Starcraft because it was another C&C(DUNE 2 really) clone of simple strategy and ****ty AI. No offense to fans!
I would hate to see this new game turn into ANOTHER carbon-copy that tries to claim how unique their version of RTS is.
So please end the Starcraft comparisons (I know it first started by Firaxis) or wishes for comparisons now. I rather puncture my eardrums with a sharp pencil than play C&C with Dinos.
[This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 03, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Lock]

I read that thread and did not see any real alarm at the prospect of a 'Dinocraft' Just people expressing doubt about the likelihood. I thought Firaxis read this board and I wanted them to see some alarm.
Marketing? Once again, no offense, but good marketing is not an achievement to be lauded along with good gameplay. It might save games from being lost but that's as far as that goes. If you like the game fine. Don't throw good marketing at me like that shows Starcraft has merit. If anything that just proves the point that it is a piece of mass-demographic-targeting trash IMO.
I am not trying to pick a fight with any fans of Starcraft. I know many people enjoy it. If you can extract some excitement out of it good for you. I personally don't like Starcraft but I loved all the original RTS games. I am not alone in this opinion but that's all it is, dont take it personally.

[Glak]

Ok, let's get this straight. Some people use SC in various examples in discussion about games, so that they can get their points across better. You don't like that. So you decide to post asking for fewer examples using SC. In that post you make controversial claims regarding SC. What you might not have realized is the contoversy always prompts discussion. Well since you started a thread discussing SC I can't help but add to the discussion.

"Come on people liked Starcraft because it was another C&C(DUNE 2 really) clone of simple strategy and ****ty AI. No offense to fans! "

C&C clone eh? Starcraft descended from C&C, however it is a different game, most would agree better. As for strategy I won't comment too much but, come on. Isn't C&C considered the tank rush game? In SC you have the option to rush but it isn't the only option and it isn't the best.

As for AI SC's is truely astounding. Of course I can beat it but still. A large number of games on bnet are 3v1 AI. Some of these people play just for easy wins but many others are actually challenged by the AI, even with such odds. Good AI is hard to do, I have never played a game with stronger AI than SC.

"I would hate to see this knew game turn into ANOTHER carbon-copy that tries to claim how unique their version of RTS is."

Blizzard has never claimed to be unique.

"So please end the Starcraft comparisons (I know it first started by Firaxis) or wishes for comparisons now."

What if I am going to talk about multiplayer? Isn't SC a good example of a multiplayer game?

Ok now onto the next post

"Marketing? Once again, no offense, but good marketing is not an achievement to be lauded along with good gameplay. It might save games from being lost but that's as far as that goes. If you like the game fine."

I agree, marketing has no correlation with game quality. Actually I think bad games are the ones with the good marketing.

Starcraft had horrible marketing. When it was originally shown at e3 (96 I think?) they were laughed off the stage and had to go back and redo the whole game. Later when the game was near completion they had no web prescence at all. The forums were filled with bickering idiots and blizzard gave next to no information at all. Then the game was released and sold well. Still sales don't mean that much either. It didn't even get great reviews, most review sites look for flashy stuff and SC didn't impress their one week attention spans. However you'll want to look at battle.net to see how well SC is doing. Recently 11.6 million games were played in a single day. Over 100,000 users were on at the same time. This is two years after the release. Yeah I guess all of those people were swayed by flashy ads and it never occured to them to switch games later. Yes those figures are accurate too, battle.net tracks everything.

" Don't throw good marketing at me like that shows Starcraft has merit. If anything that just proves the point that it is a piece of mass-demographic-targeting trash IMO."

Actually SC isn't a mass market game. In the future I expect other lines to far outstrip the 'craft games in popularity as non gamers discover things like AoE and deer hunter.

"I am not trying to pick a fight with any fans of Starcraft. I know many people enjoy it. If you can extract some excitement out of it good for you."

I sort of see SC like a ball of yarn. You might be at the table reading the paper and looking at the cat. The person at the table gets a high and mighty feeling because he's doing something intellectual while the cat is just playing with a ball of yarn. But maybe if we look deeper we'll see that the cat is actually an advanced being conduction advanced physics experiments that the human could never understand.

" I personally don't like Starcraft but I loved all the original RTS games. I am not alone in this opinion but that's all it is, dont take it personally."

You know those old westwood games were good for their time, but I don't see how they could have hit upon the perfect RTS back then.

[Lock]

You've shown a stunning ability at dissection, Glack. I especially like how you took each sentence and gave it personal attention. I hope you had fun ;-)
Ball of yarn it is, then.

My single point in posting this thread was to show my disdain at a 'Craft style Dinosaurs. Everything else was to support that and should be taken in that context.

I still believe that Starcraft is a classic RTS clone with so-so AI. It might be the best example of that but that does not change its definition. I also felt the game was too short and did not provide an environment in which to fully take advantage of thier system of units. I also believe the credit for such good multiplayer statistics should go to Battle.net.
I am perhaps a little hard on RTS games only because of the long legacy of very bad copycats and clones. The genre (I hate genre classifications but alas...) burned itself out for a lot of people.

Regardless I suspected a whole lot more flack from Starcraft fans. I thought there were a lot posting on this board, guess I was wrong. My faith in humankind is restored.
:-)

[Glak]

"You've shown a stunning ability at dissection, Glack. I especially like how you took each sentence and gave it personal attention. I hope you had fun ;-)
Ball of yarn it is, then."

The first forum I ever went to was the starcraft suggestion forum, where they had a threaded format. I think the forum format influences the posting styles.

"My single point in posting this thread was to show my disdain at a 'Craft style Dinosaurs. Everything else was to support that and should be taken in that context."

I actually don't want dinos to be a 'craft game. I think firaxis's strengths lie in other areas. I do however hope that they move away from the simulation style and switch to a strategic style.

"I still believe that Starcraft is a classic RTS clone with so-so AI."

You're right Starcraft's AI isn't as good as a human player. However other games have weaker AI. Then again I don't think AI is essential at all, multiplayer is where it is at.

"It might be the best example of that but that does not change its definition. I also felt the game was too short and did not provide an environment in which to fully take advantage of thier system of units."

I liked how the single player wasn't too long. I like playing a little single player but not too much. If they made it too long people might not bother finishing it and they'd miss out on the story. I guess you could say that if the game was better people would want to play more, and that is sort of true, but I think it is also important to know when to stop.

"I also believe the credit for such good multiplayer statistics should go to Battle.net."

I only mentioned that they were accurate because last time someone basically said there was no way they could be right. Well maybe they are wrong but then again maybe everything we know is wrong. I believe that blizzard's statistics are accurate and that if there is technical error that it would logically underreport users. This was just an explaination as to why I included that sentance

"I am perhaps a little hard on RTS games only because of the long legacy of very bad copycats and clones. The genre (I hate genre classifications but alas...) burned itself out for a lot of people."

well not everyone likes all types of games. That is natural. I personally don't like sim games or games like street fighter. As for copycats and clones that is part of the natural process of evolution. In five years or so there will probably only be six or seven RTS lines out there, each in its own subgenre, or perhaps sharing it with a single competitor. I think the same thing happens in all genres.

[NoviceCEO]

Lock, Starcraft was an IMMENSE evolution in the RTS genre, it was no clone and is a great example of a greatly planned game, both in the real game quality as in marketing.

I haver never agreed with anyone here that wished that the Dino's became a RTS clone (take a look at the topic "who ever created the word Dinocraft was a genius") and I don't think anyone have agreed with that, or shown a way to make it possible.

You said, don't make comparison to "Stacraft", why not saying to "all games" then? It makes no difference.

[korn469]

quote: Originally posted by Lock on 02-03-2000 09:38 AM and ****ty AI... I rather puncture my eardrums with a sharp pencil than play C&C with Dinos. [This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 03, 2000).]

civ and SMAC have the really ****ty AI...starcraft's AI might not be the smartest ever but it is faster than a human and at least it will gang bang you faster than you can say, my life for aiur!

and i would love to see you jab a pencil through your ear drums...maybe that would make you realize how good starcraft is

korn469

[Biddles]

Starcraft not a clone. Starcraft - Warcraft I think there is a connection there. Besides, anyone who has played Dune2 would know that starcraft is essentailly the same game. Don't get me wrong, starcraft is a great game, but it is still a clone.

Starcraft isn't exactly revolutionary. It got where it is standing on the shoulders of giants, even blizzard would tell you that. Yes, it has better game play, it has been balanced (unlike c&c), the AI is much better (while still no challange for a half decent human player, but I suppose that can't be helped), and the interface is better. But there is nothing revolutionary about it (3 teams instead of 2 is not revolutionary).


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Lock]

Don't be so hostile to metaphor, Korn!

Dune II had 3 sides to play each with a different campaign.
You neophytes to the gaming world can download it for free here:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/hearle/Games/Dune2.html

Take it as a history lesson or refresh your memory. See how much has already been done in a game with such "poor" graphics. And why RTS games are the best example of cloning, along with First Person Shooters and the legacy of Wolfenstein.

The truly hard thing to believe here is how little improvement it takes for a game to be called immensely revolutionary. Graphical improvement has increased at an almost geometric rate, pushing technology forcibly forward. Yet gameplay has taken only faltering baby steps of change.

I would like to see somebody describe to me those immense evolutions that Starcraft has made and why they are such an improvment. Just a civil requst.



[This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 04, 2000).]

[DinoDoc]

quote: Originally posted by Lock on 02-04-2000 02:29 PM I would like to see somebody describe to me those immense evolutions that Starcraft has made and why they are such an improvment. Just a civil requst.

I agree with you that the 'Craft style of gaming is not revolutionary. It's strength comes from taking established ideas and improving on them, immensely IMHO.

[NoviceCEO]

Phew, this discussion is getting hot... I'll do my best to put all I wanted to say in the paper.

As DinoDoc's statements is the 'freshest' statement in my mind, I'll start by it. I am the guy who said Starcraft (I'll simply type SC for it) is an imense evolution in the RTS genre, I did not say RTS are an evolution.

Answering to question, why do I think SC is such an evolution for RTS's? I may not have played that much RTS's, so if I'm wrong please correct me and I hope I can be humble enough to accept it. I have played Warcraft (I and II), Red Alert, Starcraft, AoE, AoK... yeah, I guess it's about those, oh, also played Army Men. And Starcraft is simply awesome compared to then in gameplay aspects. SC has a wonderful interface, gorgeous graphics and even better perfomance (in all aspects), incredible races (or civ or factions ), well-designed and nearly perfect balance and for last an excellent AI and code. I bet many people will not agree that the AI is good, but the "AI and code" concept does a kick ass work. SC AI was not designed to keep you playing single player for months, but it'll give you a hand on studying unit production and tweaking your strategy. Also, the commands response is great, the units move smoothly and don't get stuck on bottle necks and in a hot battle scene they won't simply get lost, as happens all the time in AoE and often in AoK. Now that I'm finished with my adjectives, is that enough to say SC was a revolutionary RTS (in its genre)? Any player that considers him/herself a hardcore fan of RTS's should be hiding him/herself now if he/she haven't played SC (at least got the demo and tryed it).

About marketing... Many people consider Microsoft's products a bunch of trash. I agrre with them, but we use them. Why? Marketing. You guys can keep yelling that you don't want a good marketing, but a good game, but programmers must eat and marketing may help them with that (or tell me you don't like money?). I said that SC is an example of both a good game and marketing because everyone will have to agree with either one of those: if SC ain't good, why is there so much people playing it? (did I hear the word marketing).

Glak, I haven't watched Blizzard's plan from the start, but they did a pretty good job at marketing while I was hearing of it (please note too that I include the company's name and fame in marketing).

My last subject starts with a question: Why are some of you so unilateral! You claim SC to be a clone, but it's not. It's a game from a company that has the second name 'RTS'. It's the same thing as saying Civ2 is a clone. But if that's your conecpt of clone, I don't advice to spread that too much on this forum as people will make you burn in fire.

My humble opnions,
novice

[Youngsun]

I found Starcraft very interseting and creative with lots of fun to play since I tried multiplay in the Battlenet. When I first met this game, my impresseion was not very good(eh! another C&C/Warcraft clone?) That impression had existed as long as I played against AI only but when I confronted with other human players via Battlenet, I could see the real greatness of this game.

1.Each faction has its own unique build order and style.
2.Countless number of tactics were displayed by legendary players
3.Well balanced power distribution among three factions.
4.System requirement is not very demanding compared to what it can provide to us. 5.Coordination with other human players is essential(all for one! one for all!)
6.Very intuitive and easy interface.

Although the impact and satisfaction were not as great as Dune2, I still regard SC as one of the greatest game ever made as far as RTS games are concerned. Also it is one of few games that I don't regret for its purchase.

Finally, I believe it is better for the people to comment on games that they really got into bottom of it or at least people who spent fair amount of time to play that game. Otherwise it is really hard to see the true nature of the game(does not apply to all games,though)

To all people who don't like SC: Have you ever even tried the Battlenet? If you don't, I strongly recommend to try and spent some time(it's good fun playing with/against friends) don't want try? then you guys have no right to comment on SC because SC's greatness comes from its Multiplay.

Ola! Novice how are you?(I hope I pronounced right)

[NoviceCEO]

Thanks for your post Youngsun. It seems that you've been studying some greetings.