Why is StarCraft considered a masterpiece?

[relootz]

You gotta be a real sucker to think that blizzard supports Starcraft.
A stupid hot fix every 9 months isn't support.

They haven't made it work on battle.net properly for people using routers like Warcraft 3 does.
The netcode seems extremely poor compared to other rts games, over battle.net Starcraft is very laggy.
Battle.net for Starcraft is a joke, they fixed it for Warcraft 3 but nothing for Starcraft.

If blizzard really supports their games (lol, they don't, they make sure they're bug free but thats not true support, see Starcraft) they would create a higher resolution for the Battle.net lobby and add in all the improvements that they did for Warcraft 3, fast 1 on 1 matchups, fixing up the netcode, pairing people up so they don't lag, etc

Blizzard does not support Starcraft.


---------

I'll elaborate a bit more on why Battle.net for Starcraft sucks
It's hard to find a random 1 on 1 game, most of the games on the list are
hacked money maps and in Korean, if you manage to find a 1 on 1 game
you'll probably get kicked out or wont be able to join 'cause another 70-thousand
players clicked it also.

They all use different version of the same fucking map with some slight change,
if you lag at all or take more than a few seconds to download the map you're gone.

The netcode is so poor there's a good chance a person will just drop out of the game
when it starts, either due to lag or because he's running some map hack.
(it's probably the reason why the games so easily hacked also)

There's no filtering system worth a shit for the games list, and if you try and query it
a few times in a row you'll get blocked for about 10 seconds from listing it again.

The community, this one isn't Blizzards fault, and I hate to judge, and this is probably
why so many Europeans, and no I'm not racist, play the inferior Warcraft III, is incredibly stupid or Korean, and Koreans are racist against Westerners.

A decent 1 on 1 match making system that penalises you with a loss for leaving because you're racist and don't like playing with a westerner would fix this issue and bring the cultures together more.

Warcraft III more or less fixes all of these issues in it's Battle.net implementation, but there's NO SUPPORT FOR STARCRAFT

If you want these features you have to join a private tournament and download extra programs to patch up the REAL PROBLEMS with Starcraft, and find games manually in one of their channels.

www.iccup.com

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

You gotta be a real sucker to think that blizzard supports Starcraft.
A stupid hot fix every 9 months isn't support.

They haven't made it work on battle.net properly for people using routers like Warcraft 3 does.
The netcode seems extremely poor compared to other rts games, over battle.net Starcraft is very laggy.
Battle.net for Starcraft is a joke, they fixed it for Warcraft 3 but nothing for Starcraft.

If blizzard really supports their games (lol, they don't, they make sure they're bug free but thats not true support, see Starcraft) they would create a higher resolution for the Battle.net lobby and add in all the improvements that they did for Warcraft 3, fast 1 on 1 matchups, fixing up the netcode, pairing people up so they don't lag, etc

Blizzard does not support Starcraft.


---------

I'll elaborate a bit more on why Battle.net for Starcraft sucks
It's hard to find a random 1 on 1 game, most of the games on the list are
hacked money maps and in Korean, if you manage to find a 1 on 1 game
you'll probably get kicked out or wont be able to join 'cause another 70-thousand
players clicked it also.

They all use different version of the same fucking map with some slight change,
if you lag at all or take more than a few seconds to download the map you're gone.

The netcode is so poor there's a good chance a person will just drop out of the game
when it starts, either due to lag or because he's running some map hack.
(it's probably the reason why the games so easily hacked also)

There's no filtering system worth a shit for the games list, and if you try and query it
a few times in a row you'll get blocked for about 10 seconds from listing it again.

The community, this one isn't Blizzards fault, and I hate to judge, and this is probably
why so many Europeans, and no I'm not racist, play the inferior Warcraft III, is incredibly stupid or Korean, and Koreans are racist against Westerners.

A decent 1 on 1 match making system that penalises you with a loss for leaving because you're racist and don't like playing with a westerner would fix this issue and bring the cultures together more.

Warcraft III more or less fixes all of these issues in it's Battle.net implementation, but there's NO SUPPORT FOR STARCRAFT

If you want these features you have to join a private tournament and download extra programs to patch up the REAL PROBLEMS with Starcraft, and find games manually in one of their channels.

meh multiplayer sucks anyway...and don't get me started on MMOs

 

[kingcomrade]

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.

That's pretty arbitrary, and also pretty stupid.

 

[TheWesDude]

fuck you bitch tranny sluts.


starcraft sucks ass.

dark reign 1/2 are the only things that made me put down red alert.

sup com is the only RTS that made me put down dark reign.

cant wait till sup com 2 comes out. im eagerly awaiting that game.

i will have to play a demo or else "aquire" SC2 before i buy it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

fuck you bitch tranny sluts.


starcraft sucks ass.

dark reign 1/2 are the only things that made me put down red alert.

sup com is the only RTS that made me put down dark reign.

cant wait till sup com 2 comes out. im eagerly awaiting that game.

i will have to play a demo or else "aquire" SC2 before i buy it.

Sup com sucks alot more than SC, The craft series are a lite jump in jump out strategy series, kinda like heros of might and magic only less micromanagement.The craft series gives us C&C and that's not such a bad thing I mean at least RA3 is fun...and is the closest thing to C&C that's been fun in a decade or so....

WC2/SC2 are great fun titles that don't need you to to sell your brain to play, tho they dumbed things down to much for WC3.....hopefully SC2 wont be as bad *looks at WOW* oh shhhttttt.....

PS: I liked Dune and Shining force more than Sup com..... 0-o

 

[Overweight Manatee]

tho they dumbed things down to much for WC3.....hopefully SC2 wont be as bad *looks at WOW* oh shhhttttt.....

Have you even played WC3? If anything its far harder then SC in terms of needing to know ridiculous amounts of unit matchups, timing windows and shit. For you to say that it was dumbed down I can only imagine you are referring to the cartoonish artstyle and have completely ignored the gameplay.

 

[Destroid]

Dark Reign 2 was completely retarded and nothing to do with Dark Reign 1.

 

[DraQ]

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.

I'm still wondering if he would eventually notice, after all these years, that this site is not named "Tactics Codex" for a reason, then go all ...

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.

I'd argue there were quite a few new (to the FPS genre) elements introduced in doom. First, the weapons that actually work differently - no several different takes on slugthrower, differing only by their rate of fire (Wolfenstein3D), no several different takes on fireball (Pandemonium Abyss) - Doom pretty much defined standard FPS arsenal and did so so well, that the impact effectively stayed the further development in this field for several years - several years, during which we pretty much treated '3' and shotgun as synonyms. It also was the first trying to go for horror atmosphere, unlike almost arcade'y Wolf3D.

As for Civilization, I don't think concept of game encompassing development of an entire civilization, starting from pre-bronze age society, to space age had been pursued before and this is p. fucking grand.

Innovative games

I think I may have worded that somewhat badly - it's not bare innovation, but introducing some sort of new (positive) quality to the genre, and frankly, I think that qualities derived from immensely popular SC multi are meta - it's not a new quality on it's own, and any new qualities that may result from immensely popular multiplayer, are tied to the fact that it's an RTS with immensely popular multiplayer, rather than any actual quality of the game itself.

I can give blizzard that they are superb at balancing, and I can reluctantly agree that SC's simplicity may nevertheless create an interesting abstract game, but I still don't think it's a masterpiece - merely a very good craftsmanship.

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.

That still makes for some pretty circular logic - a shit game (unless massively hyped) wouldn't have attracted sufficient amount of competitive players. Given, that we are talking about multiplayer scene, not modding scene, the possible tactical depth gained is still limited by the game itself, regardless of the size of it's multiplayer scene, so no, unless you're Pete and are mainly interested in peddling shit for monies, the quantity is not quality.

That's pretty arbitrary, and also pretty stupid.

Irony overwhelming!

 

[AzraelCC]

sup com is the only RTS that made me put down dark reign.

cant wait till sup com 2 comes out. im eagerly awaiting that game.

Besides the fact that subgenres do exist in RTS (Sup com is focused on logistics and optimizing economy so it doesn't really compete with SC), enjoy playing with 2d icons with 3d graphics running in the background.

I'm still wondering if he would eventually notice, after all these years, that this site is not named "Tactics Codex" for a reason, then go all FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ...

Well, that's his thing, and you've got to admire consistency at some point. Besides, the reason why it's difficult to discuss RPGs is that the definition of one is very contested on a lot of levels, unlike, say this thread about SC--RTS (and strategy games in general) have many areas where people can actually agree on as what defines the genre. mondblut may have a narrow view of what an RPG should be, but at that's his idea of a standard sorely lacking in defining role-playing games.

I'd argue there were quite a few new (to the FPS genre) elements introduced in doom. First, the weapons that actually work differently - no several different takes on slugthrower, differing only by their rate of fire (Wolfenstein3D), no several different takes on fireball (Pandemonium Abyss) - Doom pretty much defined standard FPS arsenal and did so so well, that the impact effectively stayed the further development in this field for several years - several years, during which we pretty much treated '3' and shotgun as synonyms. It also was the first trying to go for horror atmosphere, unlike almost arcade'y Wolf3D.

I don't know, those sound like refinements to me:

1) Weapons that were different via incremental stats were made more varied.
2) The integration of a "unique" horror setting.
3) The 3 = shotgun idea was a simply product of Doom's popularity.

All of these positive developments were in some form similar to what SC did:

1) RTS with incrementally different races (Dark Colony) were made more varied by SC.
2) The integration of a "unique" narrative style in the campaign.
3) The "zerg-ing" strategy was simply a product of SC's popularity.

I think I may have worded that somewhat badly - it's not bare innovation, but introducing some sort of new (positive) quality to the genre, and frankly, I think that qualities derived from immensely popular SC multi are meta - it's not a new quality on it's own, and any new qualities that may result from immensely popular multiplayer, are tied to the fact that it's an RTS with immensely popular multiplayer, rather than any actual quality of the game itself.

The meta quality maybe true; a lot of the blind fanatics of SC attribute innovations brought about by the multiplayer/MP community to the game design itself.

I can give blizzard that they are superb at balancing, and I can reluctantly agree that SC's simplicity may nevertheless create an interesting abstract game, but I still don't think it's a masterpiece - merely a very good craftsmanship.

But that balance, both of the races and the macro and micro levels of play is the positive element introduced by Starcraft. Prior to SC, RTS games were barely concerned with balance--hence the lazy decision to keep using two mirror races with just a few statistical differences. Since they were almost identical, the balance came naturally. Game designers didn't have to think about counter strategies too much and focused on making "cool" units or abilities. After Starcraft, every RTS, including Blizzard's own Warcraft 3, had to consider how balanced their mechanics are.

In the end, maybe Starcraft IS just a very well-made game. But clearly, the design decisions that made SC well-made has caused RTS designers to make better games, or at least, lessened RTS that sucked. Prior to Starcraft, every programmer and his uncle was making RTS games. The genre was saturated 2-3 weak-ass games every few months that wanted to capitalize on RTS multiplayer being inherently "fun." After SC, fewer RTS games were made, but of significantly better quality. That is Starcraft's contribution, and I think ultimately, that's enough to earn it's status of masterpiece.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm still wondering if he would eventually notice, after all these years, that this site is not named "Tactics Codex" for a reason, then go all ...

You mean it's named -RPG- Codex - a genre coming from wargames... oops

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

tho they dumbed things down to much for WC3.....hopefully SC2 wont be as bad *looks at WOW* oh shhhttttt.....

Have you even played WC3? If anything its far harder then SC in terms of needing to know ridiculous amounts of unit matchups, timing windows and shit. For you to say that it was dumbed down I can only imagine you are referring to the cartoonish artstyle and have completely ignored the gameplay.

The path finding and tactics used by the AI are pathetic this made the game easy and dumbed down, it might have been better polished engine and even unit/ect wise that might have made MP better if I gave a rats ass for MP...... but the fact of the matter is the AI was horrid, I had more trouble with WC2/SC than WC3 on hardest mode. If SC2 fixes that and gives you the unit numbers of SC or more then my god its worth the rancid wank they are doing with the it(no lan and broken up into 3 games)

 

[Serious_Business]

I'm still wondering if he would eventually notice, after all these years, that this site is not named "Tactics Codex" for a reason, then go all ...

You mean it's named -RPG- Codex - a genre coming from wargames... oops

You are too shit to hold up the RPG flag, stop prentending. Now. Being a critique doesn't make you any less part of the problem. In fact it makes you part of the problem, you piece of shit.

What problem lulz? Well I actually wrote that. Nonsense and motherfucking rpgs hellz motherfucking yeah

 

[Reject_666_6]

I can give blizzard that they are superb at balancing, and I can reluctantly agree that SC's simplicity may nevertheless create an interesting abstract game, but I still don't think it's a masterpiece - merely a very good craftsmanship.

So what is an example of a ZOMG masterpiece? Dark Reign? Company of Heroes or the Command and Conquer series?

 

[TheWesDude]

if you think sup com does not have C&C per unit choice, no micro-management, no differences between the "races", and is 2d graphic based...

you havent played sup com, especially with FA.

each "race" has drastic differences, but the problem is they are nuanced so most people do not notice them due to not paying attention.

they are very complex 3d graphics, individual guns/turrets rotate, usually on a flat plane, but in some cases in all 3 dimensions.

the factions have different bonuses and different weaknesses. some of the differences are per tier level.

at the beginning while you can que up everything, it is very possible to micro your economy and squeeze out a bit more effecient production.

if you think sup com sucks, you havent played it.

 

[AzraelCC]

if you think sup com sucks, you havent played it.

I played it and I was actually looking forward to it when it was first announced. I loved TA, and with the supposed grand scale strategy it offered, I really had high hopes for it. I loved Cossacks too, so a combination of the economy based gameplay of TA plus the over the top unit count of Cossacks, I was really excited for Supreme Commander to come out.

When it did, I wouldn't say it sucked. Rather, it was a very flawed game. My main gripe was the multiple zoom levels. You end up using the strategic map more than the actual view of the game for the entire duration of the game that I wonder if the should have just stuck to that strategic map and removed the 3d "normal" view.

I agree it's very playable on that level--I never said that Supreme Commander was a dumb game, nor criticized its race variety. It's just a different type of RTS that doesn't compete with Starcraft. It works on some level because it brings back the subgenre that TA started, which was unfortunately lost amidst the overwhelming success of Starcraft as the quintessential RTS game.

Besides, you have to admit that the three race choice for Sup Com was definitely influenced by Starcraft, yet another convention established by the game you consider stupid.

 

[Ryuken]

When it did, I wouldn't say it sucked. Rather, it was a very flawed game. My main gripe was the multiple zoom levels. You end up using the strategic map more than the actual view of the game for the entire duration of the game that I wonder if the should have just stuck to that strategic map and removed the 3d "normal" view.

Then you really haven't played it (at a competitive level), it isn't a game of dots but a decent middle road between a good overview and in-your-face action. People playing in the highest zoomed out overview for most of the time will lose and need to use their mouse wheel more. SupCom has its flaws alright but a lack of spectacle or a poor UI certainly aren't any of them.

Besides, you have to admit that the three race choice for Sup Com was definitely influenced by Starcraft, yet another convention established by the game you consider stupid.

StarCraft "established" varied races with some balance (and the best linear RTS campaign yet) but varied races themselves weren't new at all in the RTS genre before StarCraft came out.

I would definitely consider StarCraft a masterpiece but it ain't at the RTS top all by itself, popular or not. It has too many UI shortcomings to be standing alone there. I want total control and not babysit a unit every time it wants to pee in the woods.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

fuck your 5 pages

Is it the balance, fast pace, setting or something else?

Three completely different races(for the first time EVAR)
Nevertheless excellent balance
"technical" limitations like inability to select more than 12 units or multiple buildings or to queue more than 5 units which makes progaming harder
Great MP(because of the above)
Strong story, strong characters, strong universe
Great SP(because of the above)
Looks good(even today)
Sounds good(even today)

 

[Jasede]

Stop prentending

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Stop prentending

That SC is not all that bad or your part of the brotherhood of ass? speaking of which I need to re up my dues but I have not been feeling douchery enough of late

 

[Jasede]

I'm still wondering if he would eventually notice, after all these years, that this site is not named "Tactics Codex" for a reason, then go all ...

You mean it's named -RPG- Codex - a genre coming from wargames... oops

You are too shit to hold up the RPG flag, stop prentending. Now. Being a critique doesn't make you any less part of the problem. In fact it makes you part of the problem, you piece of shit.

What problem lulz? Well I actually wrote that. Nonsense and motherfucking rpgs hellz motherfucking yeah

 

[cutterjohn]

Two words:
Zerg Rushes.

I never found this game to be very good personally, and found Total Anihilation much closer to something worthy of being called a masterpiece, but even TA fails to reach that level.

Since that time RTSes have just gone downhill, and very quickly as too much AI is sacrificed for the actiony RTS style game play.

It's like how to make an RTS:
1. pretty gfx
2. lots of explosions
3. mind boggling simplicity
4. pretty gfx
5. XYZ rushes
6. ???
7. profit

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Two words:
Zerg Rushes.

I never found this game to be very good personally, and found Total Anihilation much closer to something worthy of being called a masterpiece, but even TA fails to reach that level.

Since that time RTSes have just gone downhill, and very quickly as too much AI is sacrificed for the actiony RTS style game play.

It's like how to make an RTS:
1. pretty gfx
2. lots of explosions
3. mind boggling simplicity
4. pretty gfx
5. XYZ rushes
6. ???
7. profit

I dunno the craft games tried at least to balance crap out its mostly the others and WC3 that made everything crappy after awhile.....

 

[Kraszu]

Two words:
Zerg Rushes.

What about it? It is not to strong, and it does not even require much speed compared to other thing that you have to do in SC.

 

[DraQ]

a genre coming from wargames... oops

Sure darling, as long as you don't mind me calling you an australopitecus - that's what you came from (andharia would object, but I'd disregard it on the grounds of him being a brainwashed muslim retard).

Besides, the reason why it's difficult to discuss RPGs is that the definition of one is very contested on a lot of levels

That's because cRPGs are naturally hybrid genre (trait-wise, not genetically) - a stat-based wargame/dungeon crawler coupled with a (varyingly non-linear) adventure game.

I don't know, those sound like refinements to me:

1) Weapons that were different via incremental stats were made more varied.

A new quality - rocket launcher or BFG don't follow from Wolf3D's pistol->rifle->chaingun.

2) The integration of a "unique" horror setting.

New qualities can be obtained by combining old ones in new ways - after all every object IRL (including information carriers) is a combination of small set of elementary particles, so if we defined new quality so as to exclude combinations, we would have came up with a notion that would yield an empty set, making it practically meaningless.

3) The 3 = shotgun idea was a simply product of Doom's popularity.

Nevertheless "pistol, shotgun, more dakka, rocket launcher" order became very strongly integrated into FPS games - it's not popularity, it's that this set of weapons worked so well, that others prefered to copy it, rather than come up with something different or modify it significantly.

1) RTS with incrementally different races (Dark Colony) were made more varied by SC.

Except SC wasn't the first game to introduce truly different sides.

2) The integration of a "unique" narrative style in the campaign.

Again, not the first game.

But that balance, both of the races and the macro and micro levels of play is the positive element introduced by Starcraft.

But balance is not a positive element. It's merely lack of imbalancing units, strategies and situations. It's also a fucking straightforward thing in a competitive game - to make gameplay interesting you have to make sides equal in power. It's not a coincidence that first competitive games - I'm speaking of chess or go here - had sides as identical as possible.

After SC, fewer RTS games were made, but of significantly better quality. That is Starcraft's contribution, and I think ultimately, that's enough to earn it's status of masterpiece.

This can attributed to Starcraft dominating the MP RTS market, so again, popularity, rather than game itself.

 

[Ch1ef]

Two words:
Zerg Rushes.

One word:
Koreans