Proof please.

I disagree with all of that. Blizzard's fanboys or Blizzard are not responsible for all the Starcraft clones games. Or WOW clones either. Rather its the very same developers who are to blame. Trying to copy Blizzard formula so that they themselves can have success and money, only to end up copying it badly. Rather than coming up with something original and fun on its own. Besides Starcraft there is COH, SupCom, Total War, EU, GalCiv2, SOASE, DOW, WIC, etc. Besides WOW there is EVE, Tabula Rasa, POTBS, etc.

Now, if you simply have a grudge against Blizzard and Starcraft, because you hate the game but it's still quite popular. Then I must say frankly, shut up and move along to the games you like and leave the rest of the "fanboys". Hopefully they won't follow you and thus nobody will bother anybody. And all will be well.

LOL, you didn't read my post - I never played SC. I was saying that most RTS games have this odd form of false tactics, and SoaSE it better because it does not.

- PR-0927

Are you done?

No one is saying Starcraft is teh best evar or anything like that, it's just bizarre that people are calling it a horrible game while it really is not by any objective measure. It's like calling The Godfather a bad movie just because you don't like crime films.

It's fine to dislike the game from a personal standpoint, but that's just an opinion with pretty much zero support from facts. For example, I thought Bioshock was a rather mediocre game - it was far too easy on any setting and gameplay choices were either illusory (the character would be maxed out in all areas) or jarringly black and white (you ended up as either a saint or a villain.) The setting, story and atmosphere were not enough to redeem the game above mediocrity in my eyes. Still, I do acknowledge that it's a masterpiece in its own way.

There's no way around the fact that Starcraft is currently the most influential and successful RTS of all time, and the only RTS ever to continuously succeeded in competitive circles. That's no mere fluke of popularity but a result of fine design, balancing and continuous support.

SC is uniquely suited to competitive play because it includes the elements of both micro- and macromanagement in sufficient quantity to reward strategic thinking, tactical management and multitasking. It's fast and overwhelming, and that is good for competition.

I fully agree that other games (Sins, for example) are better suited for casual gaming because of their slower pace and streamlined gameplay, and this also seems to be what the gaming community expects these days. Direct Starcraft clones will not be able to capture an audience any more, and that's progress. That's also a unique challenge to developers wishing to create a competitive RTS - the game must be both friendly to beginners (to gain an initial playerbase) and sufficiently overwhelming at more advanced levels to enable competitive play.

Oh no one of the most successful video games of all times, one guy doesn't like it though, so it must be bad. I guess I've lived a lie, thanks for setting me straight.

Hey I can grossly paraphrase too, but that doesn't lend any weight to my position on this issue nor yours. How about we quote where I said anything that even remotely suggested any of those points. I can go ahead and point out where you say starcraft sucks and you don't like it for no other given reason than other people do and want more games like it. (By definition, I would be correct in my above post's statement, so keep trying)

So did you even read my post or are YOU the tool here. There are a lot of valid reasons to call starcraft one of if not the best RTS game ever made. So far you've provided it wasn't because "TA was better". Millions of people seem to disagree with it being a bad game, so far the burden of proof is on your insane position, not mine. So lets hear it, why is Starcraft NOT a good game? Please provide adequate points not personal dislikes. Your opinion doesn't matter, we've been over that, you have a right to have one, you have a right to say "I Dislike starcraft." However you've given ZERO evidence to support your claim of starcraft being a bad game, therefore you have no right to call it one.

@Jinx... I laughed.

I'd just like to point out that the burden of proof is, in fact, yours since you made the original claim that it is one of/the best RTS ever made. That someone disputes it does not shift the burden of proof to them.

You can say that Starcraft was one of the most financially successful RTS games, which is factual and truth, but that does not automatically equate to it being one of the "best" - this claim you simply cannot prove (or disprove for that matter) and it will forever remain highly objective.

For the record, I liked Starcraft, I liked all the Warcraft games (played them since the original), the Diablos, WoW.. I've liked basically every popular game Blizzard released. I'm just making the distinction that financial success (directly linked to popularity, for obvious reasons) does not automatically equate to it being the "best" because "best" is objective You can measure units sold, you can measure the player base/popularity, you can measure longevity, but you can't measure "best" and everyone's definition of it varies.

I don't believe we were arguing that SC was extremely innovative.

I've said this many times, but perhaps not here - innovation is not required for a good game. A good game is all about execution

That is hardly the limits of Total Annihilations improvements. Try units intelligent enough to feed themselves (i.e. aircraft going to landing pads near there patrol routes when in need of repair) and fulfill their roles while on patrols (constructors repairing buildings and units and reclaiming debris and military units attacking enemies encountered in accordance with their stance). The ability to queue build orders and commands for an effectively unlimited length (oh wait, some Starcraft fanboys think that is a flaw). Then there was the fact that every weapon's firing was calculated fairly accurately according to physics (it was possible to hit a plane with artillery, but very unlikely). I could go on, but you get the point.

Best is not subjective at all, favorite would be.

I'll say it again, what you think, what I think, they don't matter. It's what the companies think, and I'll bet you any game developer would rather have the level of success starcraft had than their own. These are companies, there is a set definition of best. The most money made. It's not about what you enjoy the most, it's about one thing. How much they made, I can't explain that any simpler. That's all there is to it. The only thing you can argue with here is semantics and what a word means to "you" when that's not what matters at all.

And yes setarcos, how terrible to have a game that requires micromanagement and overwhelms. Competitive gaming is BUILT around overwhelming the player for an RTS. The whole damn point is so that the faster you are, the more efficient you are, the better you are. Your level of skill determines what you can control, and how well you can do it. You would waste a couple seconds going to build that extra barracks or what have you, I'd build it in less than one. If you want a game where speed doesn't matter maybe play one where it has no bearing at all, maybe you've heard of the phrase "Turn based strategy" There are many deep games using TBS, I like quite a few, FF tactics, all the civ games, just to name a few. All great fun, many many hours of entertainment, strategy and it allows time to think about your moves. All in all, a different kind of fun, not more, not less. Different.

What else would you suggest we build on, nothing more than build order? Because let me tell you, if it wasn't for the overwhelm factor in an RTS, where you could do everything and anything perfectly because of queues, there is no skill involved. It's nothing more than math. And I'll be the first to say I like math, but a game that devolves into nothing more than a build order? No micro? No player speed? That's not what I want a RTS game for, if I want a numbers game there are plenty of better platforms for one than an RTS. Ones with far more depth, far more complexity, and more difficult math.

And wow, repairing buildings? How fundamentally genre changing. Not having to pay attention, taking away from the overwhelm factor, good idea. If you want to essentially castrate even more of the competitive elements. If you want a single player game go pick a 4x, not an RTS. I play both, when I want one style of gameplay, I choose the corresponding genre, surprise surprise. We all had high hopes for sins, it's a good game, but it's not what any one of us *really* wanted. So many people wanted 4x depth in an RTS, but there's a reason why it doesn't work. It takes all of the micromanagement out of it or it takes the overwhelm factor to the absolute extreme and makes it frustrating to play. Sins did the former. Granted micro can help, but it's really paltry. Build orders and player speed/knowledge are the entire game. Knowing how to counter each unit, how to get your econ faster, how to get your units faster. It's all about the knowledge and speed, the build order being part of knowledge.

So you're left with physics based weaponry, yes, that's just what we need. Hills having more of an effect on gameplay than skill. It's cool, it's innovative, and it's utter garbage in a multiplayer setting. Depending on the map in TA or sup com, some units value went through the floor, others through the roof. And all because of the lovely little thing called physics.

Not being able to fire and move, ever think there might have been a reason for that? Starcraft wouldn't be Starcraft if say marines could run away from zerglings and still be shooting, anything that melee'd would be useless. Micro would be even MORE powerful. For a competitive game, not moving and shooting allows a tighter balance between the units. It's not like they couldn't have made them move and shoot, they chose not to.

In SC2 you will be able to have lots of units, to make people like the OP happy. Starcraft requires strategy, but a different kind than Sins.

They are both different flavors of RTS. The thing that I know I will like about SC2 is its story mode, and the great custom games people will make.

I have a feeling that there will be a group in the RTS community that will not play SC2 and be like "it sucks, blah blah blah" in order to seem cool and rebellious.

Sins is an amazing game, but Blizzard is doing there own thing with Starcraft 2, which is making it better than it's predecessor. And if i'm playing my cards right, the game won't all be about rushing like the first Starcraft.

Surumon take a count of people who actually played earthbound(I did for like a grand total of 10 minutes) and then you wont be so surprised .

It absolutely is, you are just deciding to stick with an account's use of it, i.e. as a synonym for "profitable". It is profitable and popular, and a whole lot of fun to a whole lot of people, but like fun, "best" is subjective, quit trying to make it some absolute that it is not.


I like how you equate skill in a strategy game with ability to click quickly and precisely but not with being unable to cope with the requirement that you take landscape into account, how you feel twitch reaction is more strategic the actual planning, how you seem feel being able to manually position your troops using a limited interface where they will be useful makes a person more of a strategist than knowing a better strategy that they cannot execute because the interface gets in their way. Strategic ability, outside of the current way the RTS genre has developed (real life and chess for example), has almost nothing to do with how fast a person can move dumb-as-rock pieces around. It has to do with setting up patrol routes, supply lines, and deciding on paths to combat zones; not telling Private Last Class Homer to move two feet to the right.


Its funny how you don't even see how much credit where none is due you give this game. Or do you actually know for a fact that it was a design choice not necessity that resulted in this?