Starcraft Lovers vs. Starcraft Haters

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Starcraft Lovers vs. Starcraft Haters

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Starcraft Lovers vs. Starcraft Haters

ZRand007 posted 06-13-99 06:06 PM ET
I am SOOOO sick of hearing how SC is the best RTS. The truth is, it is nowhere near the best. As I have stated before, I believe it is one of the worst I have seen. Remember back in '96 and '97 when everyone was afraid that it was just gonna be "Warcraft" in space? Well, folks, that's exactly what it is! The graphics are of the same quality, the sound effects are of the same quality, the music is worse than Warcraft by far, and the AI exhibits no better tactics than WC, either. I believed the best RTS game until recently was Red Alert. (I now believe Jane's Fleet Command is) I know that it is basically the same game a s Tiberian Dawn, but it wasn't meant to be a completely different product; Tiberian Sun is. Starcraft was supposed to be a whole NEW product, but it isn't.
Anyone wanna respond?
-007
License to Kill

TheHelperMonkey posted 06-13-99 09:44 PM ET
You forgot to mention that there are three balanced, but totally different races with totally different tactics. The campaign is also nicely written and the scripted scenes are excelently done. Also, it is a blast to play on battle.net.
4Horses posted 06-14-99 11:53 AM ET
I'm with you ZR. The game is OK but I think it's actually worse than Warcraft.
ZRand007 posted 06-14-99 04:04 PM ET
Yes, the campaign, races, balance, and cut scenes are all great. But having great eye candy and a decent story doesn't make a great game...
-007
Dr. No
TheHelperMonkey posted 06-14-99 04:38 PM ET
I also mentioned the thing about the three TOTALLY different races that are all balanced. Beat that Warcrap. Also, I said before, MP kicks ass.
JohnIII posted 06-14-99 04:40 PM ET
I could swear we covered this in "Total Annihilation vs StarCraft" you know...
John III
Spoe posted 06-14-99 04:53 PM ET
Fleet Command is okay, but not out of the box. You have to tinker with the doctrine files to get it to play decently and the database to get anything near the realism it claims to portray(and you still can't change aircraft loadouts). I still think my all-time favorite RTS is still the original Harpoon computer game(ok, granted, it was EGA graphics, but it came out like 10 years ago). My hopes are high for Harpoon/4 from SSI next year.
ZRand007 posted 06-14-99 04:57 PM ET
Spoe, I agree. FC isn't as good as it could have been, and I hate how strike missions carry AMRAAMS with them- I don't want them!!! I want moe bombs!!! But I do feel that FC is a far better game than SC will ever be. Period.
-007
The Living Daylights (Hey driver, where ya goin?)
TheHelperMonkey posted 06-14-99 08:04 PM ET
They are two very different games. One focuses on commanding a fleet (hence the title), the other one focuses on short term strategy choices.
BTW, have any on you played on Battle.net?
ZRand007 posted 06-14-99 08:26 PM ET
I realize that they are totally different games, but the statement I made that FC was a better game than SC will ever be is meant to show you how much more creative energy was put into FC as compared to SC. Blizzard just didn't meet the expectations of me and many people I know. And yes, I did try it on Blizzard.net with my best friend, and we got sick of it in 10 minutes. We got sick of it because we are sick of the game it basically is- Warcraft II.
-007
A View to a Kill
Shining1 posted 06-14-99 09:57 PM ET
Totally balanced is a bit of an exaggeration. Starcraft is also prone to rushes in the same way that Red Alert is prone to them. As for the graphics, they suffice, and convey a much more personal sense of the units that does either red alert or T.A (isomertic view over top down any day, thanks).
If you want a perfect A.I, you shouldn't be playing RTS games anyway. And you can do some quite difficult things to a player with a well setup Insane A.I against a poorly defended human. But Starcraft is designed for a mix of single player campaigns and multiplayer battle. Single player skirmish is nothing more than practise - when you can beat 2 A.I opponents at once on melee, you stand a decent chance on battle.net, though it will take a while to beat the rushes.
The storyline is great, compared to both red alert and T.A (especially T.A). The cheesy allied cut scenes in Red Alert deserve special mention for being total utter ****. And the variety of objectives for single player missions in SC is, while not wildly better, at least an improvement on the 'You are here. Blah blah blah kill everything' approach of the other games. And the ability to create highly sophisticated single player maps is unmatched in the genre.
I'm sorry, but I don't get the people who have this pathological hatred of Starcraft. It's a great game, the units are fun, the races widely varied, and the game is difficult to master. The races are for the most part pretty competitive with each other, while some stronger starting defenses (say miniguns on the command centre) would have helped. It has it's downside, too, like the pathetic move/attack dynamics, the lack of unit effects (no smoke, no slowdown for damage, etc), the simplistic damage system (same amount and never miss), and a few more units would have been nice as well. But, ultimately, it's a fun game.
Valtyr posted 06-14-99 11:49 PM ET
Yeah, the acting in Red Alert (especially the Allies scenes) was some of the worst I've ever seen.
Raven of Despair posted 06-15-99 10:57 AM ET
Bah. The best RTS going is Sid Meier's Gettysburg! SC comes nowhere near.
Alphaman posted 06-15-99 11:53 AM ET

quote:
I could swear we covered this in "Total Annihilation vs StarCraft"
you know...
John III
Indeed.
Though I have strong opinions about this topic, I don't feel like retyping my posts from a few days ago on the same subject.
Q Cubed posted 06-15-99 01:52 PM ET
lol.
this is starting to sound like "SMAC is just like Civ2" we had before...
can i just ask one thing?
WHO THE HECK CARES?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
people may like this game, people may not. now, why do some of you people consider it necessary to argue about the merits of, or lack therof, of these games? does it matter in the long run?
JohnIII posted 06-15-99 01:57 PM ET
Does anything matter? Why should we bother? What's the use?
John III
TheHelperMonkey posted 06-15-99 08:12 PM ET
ZR: Have actually played on B.net?
How is it like War2?
Are the units the same?
Are the races the same?
Are the cutcenes the same?
Are the tilesets and critters the same?
The answer to all of these is no (with the excepetion that the worker units are the same, duh).
Plz reply.
ZRand007 posted 06-15-99 09:55 PM ET
Monkey,
Yes, as I stated in an above post, I have played on Battle.net, and I have to say it was a complete waste of time.
1. It's like War 2 because the same compnay made it. The team who designed it took War 2, and added a new story and new graphics.
2. The units are War 2's with a different candy coating. What do the Terran Marines remind you of??? Hmmm, it's tough, ain't it? Could it be Human Swordsman? Most definately.
3. The races are one of the good features of SC. Balancing 3 races is difficult, and writing a storyline with all three interlocked is probably even harder. Here's one part of the game I like.
4. Obviously, the cutscenes aren't the same. As a matter of fact the cutscenes are very well done. What would you do if you saw Orcs running around in Azeroth during a mission briefing in SC? I never said they were the same...
5. Tilesets are War 2's in space and on freaky planets, just slightly larger. The critters? Can you say "bah-ram-you"?
So, in my opinion, the answer is yes. The bottom line is SC is a mediocre game that could have a lot of potential, but the development team squandered their chance and rebuilt War 2. SC does have a few high points: the story, races, and cutscenes, but other than that all I feel is deja vu.
-007
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
(We have all the time in the world...)
Shining1 posted 06-16-99 07:11 AM ET
You want a frickin 3rd generation RTS instead of the master version of the 2nd generation one. Blizzard took their Warcraft engine as far as they could with Starcraft. It went far enough to satisfy a LOT of people.
DON'T blame people for taking an existing engine and pushing it to its limits. It's not a cop out, it's just evolution.
Q Cubed posted 06-16-99 09:36 AM ET
I'm telling you, this sounds a lot like the argument over SMAC and Civ2.
1. It's like War 2 because the same compnay made it. The team who designed it took War 2, and added a new story and new graphics.
i've heard this comment with SMAC and civ2.
2. The units are War 2's with a different candy coating. What do the Terran Marines remind you of??? Hmmm, it's tough, ain't it? Could it be Human Swordsman? Most definately.
Same thing.
3. The races are one of the good features of SC. Balancing 3 races is difficult, and writing a storyline with all three interlocked is probably even harder. Here's one part of the game I like.
it's not a complaint, but i've heard it about SMAC. Something about it being too dark and freaky.
So, the logical conclusion is, SMAC and SC are the same game!!!!!!
j/k
Valtyr posted 06-16-99 03:33 PM ET
Heresy !
ZRand007 posted 06-16-99 10:12 PM ET
Okay... the bottom line is I hate SC. I believe that it isn't worth the silicon it's burned on. I started this forum in hopes that maybe SC lovers could show me why so many people loved the game. I didn't mean to offend anyone, but not a single person has shown me that SC is a good game. If so many people love SC, why don't I? I just wanted to know why. There must be something that appeals to all of you. I just don't see it. I still believe it sucks.
Now that that's done with, let me reply to Shining.
1) 3rd generation??? I believe the Warcraft I and II era was first generation. The RTS genre was barely known until they came out. Both Command and Conquers were first generation. I believe that the God-awful (but strangely fun) WarGames was semi-second generation. Then Warzone 2100 and Machines, among others, filled in the second generation gap. Tiberian Sun will be third generation. Now, a first-generation game engine designed in 1993(Warcraft), updated in 1994(War II), was again patched up for a game in 1996(StarCraft). SC wasn't released until almost half-way into 1997. So, we have a 4-year span from which the engine was developed until its last use. In PC gaming, you just don't do that. Pushing a game engine to its limit is not acceptable if you want a good game. Therefore, SC is a generation 1.5 game, not a second generation. Evolution is a NEW engine with new features, not old ones with patches here and there added on.
Gez, can't take a break, can I?
-007
CarniveaN posted 06-16-99 11:48 PM ET
I'm just glad to see that tere won't be many gather resource-build-rush type RTS' in the future (Dune2, Warcraft, StraCraft)
Games like Myth are showing us what the gendre is capable of. Dark Reign2 and Homeworld also looks promising, but you never know.
Oh and of all the games made, I'll take Dune2 over any of them any day.
Carny
PS - for the civ2/SMAC WC/SC comparisons... besides graphics, Sid/Brian also improved things like AI, along with the graphics... i don't think you can say the same with WC/SC
anyway... just my two cents worth
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Starcraft Lovers vs. Starcraft Haters
ZRand007	posted 06-13-99 06:06 PM ET I am SOOOO sick of hearing how SC is the best RTS. The truth is, it is nowhere near the best. As I have stated before, I believe it is one of the worst I have seen. Remember back in '96 and '97 when everyone was afraid that it was just gonna be "Warcraft" in space? Well, folks, that's exactly what it is! The graphics are of the same quality, the sound effects are of the same quality, the music is worse than Warcraft by far, and the AI exhibits no better tactics than WC, either. I believed the best RTS game until recently was Red Alert. (I now believe Jane's Fleet Command is) I know that it is basically the same game a s Tiberian Dawn, but it wasn't meant to be a completely different product; Tiberian Sun is. Starcraft was supposed to be a whole NEW product, but it isn't. Anyone wanna respond? -007 License to Kill
TheHelperMonkey	posted 06-13-99 09:44 PM ET You forgot to mention that there are three balanced, but totally different races with totally different tactics. The campaign is also nicely written and the scripted scenes are excelently done. Also, it is a blast to play on battle.net.
4Horses	posted 06-14-99 11:53 AM ET I'm with you ZR. The game is OK but I think it's actually worse than Warcraft.
ZRand007	posted 06-14-99 04:04 PM ET Yes, the campaign, races, balance, and cut scenes are all great. But having great eye candy and a decent story doesn't make a great game... -007 Dr. No
TheHelperMonkey	posted 06-14-99 04:38 PM ET I also mentioned the thing about the three TOTALLY different races that are all balanced. Beat that Warcrap. Also, I said before, MP kicks ass.
JohnIII	posted 06-14-99 04:40 PM ET I could swear we covered this in "Total Annihilation vs StarCraft" you know... John III
Spoe	posted 06-14-99 04:53 PM ET Fleet Command is okay, but not out of the box. You have to tinker with the doctrine files to get it to play decently and the database to get anything near the realism it claims to portray(and you still can't change aircraft loadouts). I still think my all-time favorite RTS is still the original Harpoon computer game(ok, granted, it was EGA graphics, but it came out like 10 years ago). My hopes are high for Harpoon/4 from SSI next year.
ZRand007	posted 06-14-99 04:57 PM ET Spoe, I agree. FC isn't as good as it could have been, and I hate how strike missions carry AMRAAMS with them- I don't want them!!! I want moe bombs!!! But I do feel that FC is a far better game than SC will ever be. Period. -007 The Living Daylights (Hey driver, where ya goin?)
TheHelperMonkey	posted 06-14-99 08:04 PM ET They are two very different games. One focuses on commanding a fleet (hence the title), the other one focuses on short term strategy choices. BTW, have any on you played on Battle.net?
ZRand007	posted 06-14-99 08:26 PM ET I realize that they are totally different games, but the statement I made that FC was a better game than SC will ever be is meant to show you how much more creative energy was put into FC as compared to SC. Blizzard just didn't meet the expectations of me and many people I know. And yes, I did try it on Blizzard.net with my best friend, and we got sick of it in 10 minutes. We got sick of it because we are sick of the game it basically is- Warcraft II. -007 A View to a Kill
Shining1	posted 06-14-99 09:57 PM ET Totally balanced is a bit of an exaggeration. Starcraft is also prone to rushes in the same way that Red Alert is prone to them. As for the graphics, they suffice, and convey a much more personal sense of the units that does either red alert or T.A (isomertic view over top down any day, thanks). If you want a perfect A.I, you shouldn't be playing RTS games anyway. And you can do some quite difficult things to a player with a well setup Insane A.I against a poorly defended human. But Starcraft is designed for a mix of single player campaigns and multiplayer battle. Single player skirmish is nothing more than practise - when you can beat 2 A.I opponents at once on melee, you stand a decent chance on battle.net, though it will take a while to beat the rushes. The storyline is great, compared to both red alert and T.A (especially T.A). The cheesy allied cut scenes in Red Alert deserve special mention for being total utter ****. And the variety of objectives for single player missions in SC is, while not wildly better, at least an improvement on the 'You are here. Blah blah blah kill everything' approach of the other games. And the ability to create highly sophisticated single player maps is unmatched in the genre. I'm sorry, but I don't get the people who have this pathological hatred of Starcraft. It's a great game, the units are fun, the races widely varied, and the game is difficult to master. The races are for the most part pretty competitive with each other, while some stronger starting defenses (say miniguns on the command centre) would have helped. It has it's downside, too, like the pathetic move/attack dynamics, the lack of unit effects (no smoke, no slowdown for damage, etc), the simplistic damage system (same amount and never miss), and a few more units would have been nice as well. But, ultimately, it's a fun game.
Valtyr	posted 06-14-99 11:49 PM ET Yeah, the acting in Red Alert (especially the Allies scenes) was some of the worst I've ever seen.
Raven of Despair	posted 06-15-99 10:57 AM ET Bah. The best RTS going is Sid Meier's Gettysburg! SC comes nowhere near.
Alphaman	posted 06-15-99 11:53 AM ET quote: I could swear we covered this in "Total Annihilation vs StarCraft" you know... John III Indeed. Though I have strong opinions about this topic, I don't feel like retyping my posts from a few days ago on the same subject.
Q Cubed	posted 06-15-99 01:52 PM ET lol. this is starting to sound like "SMAC is just like Civ2" we had before... can i just ask one thing? WHO THE HECK CARES?!?!?!?!?!?!?! people may like this game, people may not. now, why do some of you people consider it necessary to argue about the merits of, or lack therof, of these games? does it matter in the long run?
JohnIII	posted 06-15-99 01:57 PM ET Does anything matter? Why should we bother? What's the use? John III
TheHelperMonkey	posted 06-15-99 08:12 PM ET ZR: Have actually played on B.net? How is it like War2? Are the units the same? Are the races the same? Are the cutcenes the same? Are the tilesets and critters the same? The answer to all of these is no (with the excepetion that the worker units are the same, duh). Plz reply.
ZRand007	posted 06-15-99 09:55 PM ET Monkey, Yes, as I stated in an above post, I have played on Battle.net, and I have to say it was a complete waste of time. 1. It's like War 2 because the same compnay made it. The team who designed it took War 2, and added a new story and new graphics. 2. The units are War 2's with a different candy coating. What do the Terran Marines remind you of??? Hmmm, it's tough, ain't it? Could it be Human Swordsman? Most definately. 3. The races are one of the good features of SC. Balancing 3 races is difficult, and writing a storyline with all three interlocked is probably even harder. Here's one part of the game I like. 4. Obviously, the cutscenes aren't the same. As a matter of fact the cutscenes are very well done. What would you do if you saw Orcs running around in Azeroth during a mission briefing in SC? I never said they were the same... 5. Tilesets are War 2's in space and on freaky planets, just slightly larger. The critters? Can you say "bah-ram-you"? So, in my opinion, the answer is yes. The bottom line is SC is a mediocre game that could have a lot of potential, but the development team squandered their chance and rebuilt War 2. SC does have a few high points: the story, races, and cutscenes, but other than that all I feel is deja vu. -007 On Her Majesty's Secret Service (We have all the time in the world...)
Shining1	posted 06-16-99 07:11 AM ET You want a frickin 3rd generation RTS instead of the master version of the 2nd generation one. Blizzard took their Warcraft engine as far as they could with Starcraft. It went far enough to satisfy a LOT of people. DON'T blame people for taking an existing engine and pushing it to its limits. It's not a cop out, it's just evolution.
Q Cubed	posted 06-16-99 09:36 AM ET I'm telling you, this sounds a lot like the argument over SMAC and Civ2. 1. It's like War 2 because the same compnay made it. The team who designed it took War 2, and added a new story and new graphics. i've heard this comment with SMAC and civ2. 2. The units are War 2's with a different candy coating. What do the Terran Marines remind you of??? Hmmm, it's tough, ain't it? Could it be Human Swordsman? Most definately. Same thing. 3. The races are one of the good features of SC. Balancing 3 races is difficult, and writing a storyline with all three interlocked is probably even harder. Here's one part of the game I like. it's not a complaint, but i've heard it about SMAC. Something about it being too dark and freaky. So, the logical conclusion is, SMAC and SC are the same game!!!!!! j/k
Valtyr	posted 06-16-99 03:33 PM ET Heresy !
ZRand007	posted 06-16-99 10:12 PM ET Okay... the bottom line is I hate SC. I believe that it isn't worth the silicon it's burned on. I started this forum in hopes that maybe SC lovers could show me why so many people loved the game. I didn't mean to offend anyone, but not a single person has shown me that SC is a good game. If so many people love SC, why don't I? I just wanted to know why. There must be something that appeals to all of you. I just don't see it. I still believe it sucks. Now that that's done with, let me reply to Shining. 1) 3rd generation??? I believe the Warcraft I and II era was first generation. The RTS genre was barely known until they came out. Both Command and Conquers were first generation. I believe that the God-awful (but strangely fun) WarGames was semi-second generation. Then Warzone 2100 and Machines, among others, filled in the second generation gap. Tiberian Sun will be third generation. Now, a first-generation game engine designed in 1993(Warcraft), updated in 1994(War II), was again patched up for a game in 1996(StarCraft). SC wasn't released until almost half-way into 1997. So, we have a 4-year span from which the engine was developed until its last use. In PC gaming, you just don't do that. Pushing a game engine to its limit is not acceptable if you want a good game. Therefore, SC is a generation 1.5 game, not a second generation. Evolution is a NEW engine with new features, not old ones with patches here and there added on. Gez, can't take a break, can I? -007
CarniveaN	posted 06-16-99 11:48 PM ET I'm just glad to see that tere won't be many gather resource-build-rush type RTS' in the future (Dune2, Warcraft, StraCraft) Games like Myth are showing us what the gendre is capable of. Dark Reign2 and Homeworld also looks promising, but you never know. Oh and of all the games made, I'll take Dune2 over any of them any day. Carny PS - for the civ2/SMAC WC/SC comparisons... besides graphics, Sid/Brian also improved things like AI, along with the graphics... i don't think you can say the same with WC/SC anyway... just my two cents worth