Why is StarCraft considered a masterpiece?

[AzraelCC]

Maybe not inferior, but hardly stellar, particularly innovative or complex. It's a good game and a solid piece of fine craftmanship, it's not an awesome ZOMG masterpiece, therefore it gets way too much praise.

So what is an example of a ZOMG masterpiece? Dark Reign? Company of Heroes or the Command and Conquer series? True, Starcraft is not innovative in terms of its features--War Wind did the whole different races before Starcraft, and C&C is definitely fast paced. But they have glaring weaknesses that prevent them from being great.

Starcraft is about skill: maneuvering units WHILE making unit and logistical decisions. And it does so in a fairly elegant manner. The strategic options are simple, true. But they have to be, so that both players can easily react given the pace of the game. Elevated ground means greater range and less damage taken. Flanking can quickly decimate an army. Even the spells are very simple, no number-crunching to optimize while in the heat of battle. A dark swarm simply prevents ALL ranged damage. Blind reduces range to zero. Psi Storm pretty much destroys all tier 1 units unless level 3 in upgrades. This simplicity in cause and effect is not a sign of tactical or strategic limitations, but rather an understanding that the game moves at a fast pace, and thus almost every ability and unit should be clear in its utility.

I guess my point is that SC is a masterpiece given the brilliant game design of multiplayer. Blizzard isn't an innovator, but when it comes to distilling games to their core elements and making these elements work as a whole, few can come close to their design expertise (at least, with SC, Diablo and even WOW. God knows if this is still true after SC2 and Diablo3).

The only RTS that probably equals Starcraft in terms of delivering on so many levels is Total Annihilation, but then its a different beast altogether. It's a strategy game that focuses more on a player adapting to the hundreds of units available for the player, as well as logistics and macro level decisions. But alas, TA has come and gone, and the fun of having new units to play with every few weeks will probably not happen again for quite sometime. TA deserves a sequel more than SC, in my opinion. Supreme Commander just doesn't cut it.

Besides, SC is quite special in that while it's popular, it actually deserves most of the praise it gets.

 

[Destroid]

In what way is Supreme Commander not a worthy successor to Total Annihilation? Sure it doesn't have the massive variety of units available but most of them filled the same role (bot arty vs tank arty etc). The only thing really missed by having half the unit count is the wide variety of hovercraft available in TA where SC gives you are limited selection based on faction.

Supreme Commander also brings some user interface improvements with the seamless zoom and customisable minimaps.

 

[DraQ]

Even the spells are very simple, no number-crunching to optimize while in the heat of battle.

Mondblut would become very butthurt at this point.

Blizzard isn't an innovator

This. I don't think that simple craftsmanship, no matter how perfect, should entitle the craftsman to the title of the author of a zomg masterpiece.

 

[Reject_666_6]

The two Azraels are the gods of this thread.

Seriously, the amount of intelligent posting and good arguments in Strategy Gaming is miles above the rest of the forum, as if this was "RTS Codex - Putting the 'Real' back in RTS". If this is how it once was for RPGs here then all the decline whiners are right.

EDIT:

Blizzard isn't an innovator

This. I don't think that simple craftsmanship, no matter how perfect, should entitle the craftsman to the title of the author of a zomg masterpiece.

Joseph Stalin once said that "quantity has a quality of its own." The fact that Starcraft is so popular makes it a better game, in a way, because since so many play it all its strategies and intricacies have been fleshed out and experimented with considerably. You could argue that Go is a better game than Chess because Go is much more strategically complex, but Chess has been fleshed out in the same way because of its huge following that it sort of overcame that strategic inferiority by having so many possibilities explored and well-documented. I don't know if that makes much sense, but it's the best I can do explaining it.

 

[MetalCraze]

Blizzard isn't an innovator, but when it comes to distilling games to their core elements and making these elements work as a whole, few can come close to their design expertise (at least, with SC, Diablo and even WOW. God knows if this is still true after SC2 and Diablo3).

Because their multiplayer just works. The multiplayer gameplay of their games is pretty simple yet quite varied so you can just fire up the game and play online and have fun in many different ways - like races in SC/classes in Diablo which provide unique playing styles (especially in comparison to other RTS'es where races just mirror themselves)

There are much more complex RTS'es out there, SC is more on the "twitchy instead of brains" side of the scale and how the "twitchy" part is done is what makes SC fun online.

But the singleplayer part of Blizzard games is always inferior unfortunately.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

But the singleplayer part of Blizzard games is always inferior unfortunately.

WC3 was pretty good IMO, SC2 looks like it should be turning out pretty well.

 

[L'ennui]

The two Azraels are the gods of this thread.

Seriously, the amount of intelligent posting and good arguments in Strategy Gaming is miles above the rest of the forum, as if this was "RTS Codex - Putting the 'Real' back in RTS". If this is how it once was for RPGs here then all the decline whiners are right.

EDIT:

Blizzard isn't an innovator

This. I don't think that simple craftsmanship, no matter how perfect, should entitle the craftsman to the title of the author of a zomg masterpiece.

Joseph Stalin once said that "quantity has a quality of its own." The fact that Starcraft is so popular makes it a better game, in a way, because since so many play it all its strategies and intricacies have been fleshed out and experimented with considerably. You could argue that Go is a better game than Chess because Go is much more strategically complex, but Chess has been fleshed out in the same way because of its huge following that it sort of overcame that strategic inferiority by having so many possibilities explored and well-documented. I don't know if that makes much sense, but it's the best I can do explaining it.

Lenin said that.

 

[DraQ]

Joseph Stalin once said that "quantity has a quality of its own." The fact that Starcraft is so popular makes it a better game

Sounds disturbingly like oblivion.

You could argue that Go is a better game than Chess because Go is much more strategically complex, but Chess has been fleshed out in the same way because of its huge following that it sort of overcame that strategic inferiority by having so many possibilities explored and well-documented. I don't know if that makes much sense, but it's the best I can do explaining it.

It doesn't. Chess have smaller situation-space available and therefore are easier to write pro-level dumb programs for. Go has much larger situation space, much more elegant rules (you could have argued elegant simplicity and abstraction in case of SC, TBH, but I'm not sure how worthwhile are those ideas in an RT game - I don't think that making RTS games is a gasme where the goal is simplicity and abstraction), and situations are very non-local, making the gameplay much more interesting.

 

[Reject_666_6]

Lenin said that.

Tabarnak!

Wait a minute, Stalin DID say that. Wikiquote does not lie.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Joseph Stalin once said that "quantity has a quality of its own." The fact that Starcraft is so popular makes it a better game

Sounds disturbingly like oblivion.

Wouldn't you say that Oblivion's popularity has made it a better game by virtue of the mods available for it? A principle better seen on Morrowind or NWN? Given that popularity can improve a game that is otherwise total garbage into being mediocre, why wouldn't it improve a game that is otherwise a close second into first place? SC has been around longer than either of those games, and unless I'm mistaken, 9.5 million units sold probably outstrips both of them combined.

 

[AzraelCC]

Mondblut would become very butthurt at this point.

Well, he already called me a LARPer when I was looking for RPGs that have mechanics not focusing on combat, so I'm fine.

This. I don't think that simple craftsmanship, no matter how perfect, should entitle the craftsman to the title of the author of a zomg masterpiece.

Doom is masterpiece; excellent atmosphere, great level design and if you play it today, you'd still enjoy it. It's as innovative as, say, Wolfenstein, the game that created the core gameplay. Doom simply refined the formula, but that decision elevated the game to a status of masterpiece. Civilization is hardly innovative--empire building games have existed since board games and even Sid Meier admits to having Simcity as an inspiration for the game. But its excellent balance of various elements make it a masterpiece, and much like Doom, it's still playable today.

Innovative games tend to lack good implementation--the ideas are great, but the problem is when the game itself is played, some elements are sacrificed for that innovative idea. War Wind, for example, is innovative in the different species, different units category. Blizzard stole some ideas from them. But War Wind was plagued by UI issues, unit imbalance and clunky pathfinding.

Some truly innovative games are well made at the same time: Sim City, Ultima, Freedom Force. I will concede that these are true ZOMG masterpieces. But Starcraft's innovation was subtler than gameplay "features." It wasn't line of sight accuracy or the incorporation of good elevation mechanics. The innovations of Blizzard was balance. Not the three different races balance but the macro and micro balance. Prior to Starcraft, multiplayer RTS was tactical-leaning or economy-leaning. WC was more tactical (unit spells and abilities) C&C and TA were more about optimizing economy. Starcraft introduced the right balance of both. The elements had to be simplified, true; but when you combine both, they become strategically complex.

This balance of these two tiers of "strategy" tends to give SC the label of a twitch-fest. Why? Because you can't play Starcraft at this point without first being adequate in terms of micro skills. The rush is a valid strategy in Starcraft: fast, cheap units to hamper the economy. It's consequences affect the macro level. However, to pull this off and to defend against this tactic, you have to be skilled enough at the micro level. The C&C/TA tank rush is different; you can do a rush by optimizing your economy to quickly build a set of units, and once a sufficient number of those units are out early enough, you're pretty much assured of victory. Because SC has a smaller unit variety in the early game, the decision of what units you choose to build is as important as how you use them.

My point is that to see the "brains" (as skyway called it) in Starcraft, you actually have to learn the proper control of your units, or "twitch". Blizzard created a game with that in mind, and the aforementioned simplicity of the tactical and economic mechanics combined together, as well as the awareness of the factor of time in the game, makes Starcraft a well-made game. Maybe not a ZOMG masterpiece, but a masterpiece nonetheless.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Joseph Stalin once said that "quantity has a quality of its own." The fact that Starcraft is so popular makes it a better game

Sounds disturbingly like oblivion.

Wouldn't you say that Oblivion's popularity has made it a better game by virtue of the mods available for it? A principle better seen on Morrowind or NWN? Given that popularity can improve a game that is otherwise total garbage into being mediocre, why wouldn't it improve a game that is otherwise a close second into first place? SC has been around longer than either of those games, and unless I'm mistaken, 9.5 million units sold probably outstrips both of them combined.

The difference is Oblivion isn't a PvP game. Hes saying that having a very large competitive scene inherently makes a game better for competitive gameplay because every technique is better fleshed out to the utmost detail. If starcraft multiplayer was 100 random noobs doing random shit it wouldn't be interesting or fun at all.

 

[relootz]

But the singleplayer part of Blizzard games is always inferior unfortunately.

You are nothing but a stupid and utterly bad troll skyway. Are u saying that the Starcraft single player is inferior?

 

[Overweight Manatee]

But the singleplayer part of Blizzard games is always inferior unfortunately.

You are nothing but a stupid and utterly bad troll skyway. Are u saying that the Starcraft single player is inferior?

Storywise its good, but gameplay wise its incredibly weak. The computer is stupid and neutered into nothing. You can pretty much win any of them just by building a crapload of units and attack moving them. Its sad when the final missions can be pretty much beaten with 100 of the weakest unit. Blizzard tried to improve on that in brood war, but it didn't change much. WC3 is a lot better in that it takes some strategy and game knowledge, and supposedly (from what I have heard from the people who have gotten previews) SC2 is going to have higher difficulty settings that should provide a decent challenege even to rather good players.

As for Blizard's other games... WC2 was mildly ok for its time (about the same as SC, but I can be a bit more forgiving), Diablo1 was decent, Diablo2 is worthless if you aren't online.

 

[denizsi]

Singleplayer of Starcraft and BW was very much :yawn: Story itself was ok I guess, good at times, but it was uninteresting as a game.

Starcraft is possibly the only RTS where there is no single and specialized ultimate-winning tactic to rule them all. You need to adapt and respond on the spot and simultaneously.

 

[Shuma]

Some people have mentioned this, but I want to emphasize the key point of Starcraft's success: its strategic and tactical complexity. People that don't understand or like the game (and not-so-coincidentally suck at it) boil it down to ZOMG ZERG RUSH, but it's so much more complex than that. Not too many games can survive the kind of punishing imbalance testing an entire nation of gaming obsessed fans can put out for 10+ years. Most crumble into obscurity within a year or two at most. But in Starcraft, even the best players keep on coming up with new tactics, tricks and builds to try even though it's been out for years now.

Every time people think one matchup devolves into X vs. X or this rush vs. a turtle, some variation comes up or there's some new tactic than can be used to make a previously unused strategy viable. Not to mention how a player's ability to micromanage can turn the tide of sometimes ludicrous troop number disparities or combinations. You can fault a lot of things with the game now, mostly UI and graphics related, but the gameplay is absolutely top-notch. It has yet to be equaled even with Blizzard's follow-up effort.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Pretty good summation

I'd like to reiterate what Azrael said and disstill it down to a couple of sentences.

Starcraft posesses a quality common to a lot of classic games - it's easy to get into, yet has enough depth to satisfy the hard-core.

I'm not a hard-core RTS gamer, I'm a relative newcomer to the genre prefering RPG's and turn-based strategy / tactical games. So, when I was looking at various RTS' to get started with a couple of years ago, I checked out all the so called classics - the AoE's, RoN's, TW's etc. and they all seemed pretty daunting (weather the complexity was real or immagined is irrelevent).

When I finally got around to cheking out SC, I was hooked immediately. Everything just made complete sence straight away and I was off and running. I think Azrael already used the word a few times - "Intuitive" - which sums it up perfectly.

I had a similar experience later with CoH. I know it gets pew pew'd here a lot, but CoH had that same quality - it was really easy for a noob to get to grips with, yet sill offered enough to keep the experienced RTS's gamers happy.

It's something a lot of developers should take note of - a long but shallow learning curve will sell you a lot more games than a short steep (or even long steep) one ever will.

 

[MetalCraze]

But the singleplayer part of Blizzard games is always inferior unfortunately.

You are nothing but a stupid and utterly bad troll skyway. Are u saying that the Starcraft single player is inferior?

I wrote what I think about SC campaigns in this thread already - yet yes they are an inferior experience. I've spent much much much more time with SC's multiplayer and it was and still is much more fun than SC SP. Base-building missions aren't fun in SP where you are limited by the hairy and sweaty hands of designers - both in how you expand and how you fight in the mission - this goes for many other RTS'es.

 

[Destroid]

Yeah, SP RTS is pretty dry stuff, I do like watching the starcraft cutscenes though.

 

[Krash]

I do like watching the starcraft cutscenes though.

Yeah, the one where some marines are doing demolition work and keep beers in the nuke charge coolant is p awesome.

 

[Trash]

Why it's considered a masterpiece? Probably because it was the best rts of its time and had a mp part that's very popular to this day.

 

[Jasede]

I played this with ye douchebags from #Fallout and it was fun; only a really good game can manage that.

See also: Doom.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Starcraft if the most polished of the craft series smooth and fun combat AI that could use tactics,decent story and setting, even WC3 was mildly retarded in comparasion... well....it was just dumb combat wise....

 

[Reject_666_6]

It's fun, challenging (lots of stuff that's important to do), well balanced (in general, don't let SC fanboys feed you shit about perfect balance though, I once got tempbanned from that team liquid site for talking about dark archons and protoss scouts), fast paced. The mechanics work, it's just a good game in general.

I don't think anyone ever meant to imply that all units are equally useful, just that all races are pretty equally powerful when played by players of equal skill level. Dark Archons are pretty decent vs Zerg in some instances if you can surprise them by gang raping an entire mutalisk force or something then run straight through their base as they shit their pants in awe, the problem is that High Templar/Archons are usually easier and combine better together.

This is something that I've always wondered about. Scouts are useless and have always been useless and the biggest reason for this is that they're really not cost-efficient, no matter what you might use them for. With that in mind, how is it that Blizzard hasn't reduced their cost by 25% or increased their ground attack significantly after all these years of patching? It seems like the easy way of getting rid of this problem has gone unnoticed for 10 years.

That and Ghosts. If they would make them one-hit-kill all infantry (except Zealots, which would be two hits) with a higher cooldown time, they would be used far more than they are (or aren't) now.

 

[Destroid]

HAHAHA you think that is bad try playing DoW2 online.