|
I just reinstalled Starcraft...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fibonacci |
after many many years of neglect. And a few hours of trying to get Vista to not be such a bastard.
Anyone down with breaking out of a few oldies? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| yeah, recently re-installed tie fighter. |
|
|
| The Doros |
| Starcraft is win...I haven't played that in a long time and i'm dying to play the second one once it comes out. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| South Korea rejoices. |
|
|
| Dojomaster26 |
| I'll play you, but I totally suck. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| SC was great in its day, but I don't understand why people still play it now. WC3:TFT is basically a new version of SC, with more tactical variables, an extra race, and heroes. |
|
|
| Dojomaster26 |
I still play it because I don't have WC3. Heck, I don't have any PC games that are newer than Quake 3 :(
I can't help it; I like my consoles too much:cool: |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
SC was great in its day, but I don't understand why people still play it now. WC3:TFT is basically a new version of SC, with more tactical variables, an extra race, and heroes. |
You need to play starcraft on a deeper level to understand why. When you think of traditional RTS games, you think of straight up tactics where you build your army and defeat your opponents'. On the surface, starcraft is like that, but when you get more into it, it's a completely different game. Ultimately, starcraft is a game of economics more than anything else.
At any point, there are an overwhelming number of possible actions a player can take, so much that even pro gamers who perfom 300+ actions per minute just can't keep up with it and end up neglecting certain aspects. That means there is virtually no skill ceilling, and that results in a huge gap between good players and crappy ones. It forces you to think of the repercussions of every little action you take, and to make your choices very carefuly, but at the same time, it constantly bombards you with an overwhelming ammount of choices to make. Yes, in cliche RTS fashion, the game gives you artificial ressources to manage like ore and gas, but in competitive starcraft, the true ressource is focus, and how you manage yours is what determines if you win or lose.
In comparison, TFT was a somewhat shallow and dull game. It's been oversimplified, overly automated and dumbed down. It focuses primarily on micromanagement (unlike starcraft), and has certain factors of luck, which makes it far less credible as a competitive game. In starcraft, when you lose, it's always your own fault. Not to say that TFT was a bad game - it was fun, and it was made in typical blizzard quality, but it certainly wasn't deep. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
You need to play starcraft on a deeper level to understand why. When you think of traditional RTS games, you think of straight up tactics where you build your army and defeat your opponents'. On the surface, starcraft is like that, but when you get more into it, it's a completely different game. Ultimately, starcraft is a game of economics more than anything else.
At any point, there are an overwhelming number of possible actions a player can take, so much that even pro gamers who perfom 300+ actions per minute just can't keep up with it and end up neglecting certain aspects. That means there is virtually no skill ceilling, and that results in a huge gap between good players and crappy ones. It forces you to think of the repercussions of every little action you take, and to make your choices very carefuly, but at the same time, it constantly bombards you with an overwhelming ammount of choices to make. Yes, in cliche RTS fashion, the game gives you artificial ressources to manage like ore and gas, but in competitive starcraft, the true ressource is focus, and how you manage yours is what determines if you win or lose.
In comparison, TFT was a somewhat shallow and dull game. It's been oversimplified, overly automated and dumbed down. It focuses primarily on micromanagement (unlike starcraft), and has certain factors of luck, which makes it far less credible as a competitive game. In starcraft, when you lose, it's always your own fault. Not to say that TFT was a bad game - it was fun, and it was made in typical blizzard quality, but it certainly wasn't deep. |
oh yeah, my skill level in SC was never very high. but i certainly see it as the same type of game as WC3. as for "dumbed down and automated" -that's simply due to its age, rather than some inherent design principle set out at the time. i think you'll find lots of automation in SC2 ;)
i dont quite understand how you can accuse WC3 of being about "micromanagement" when in the same post you're talking about pro players with 300 APS's ;) if thats not micro i dont know what is!
doesn't matter anyway, forged alliance is the deepest RTS to date and that's what im playing! :D |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh yeah, my skill level in SC was never very high. but i certainly see it as the same type of game as WC3. |
Of course - like I was saying, on a casual level, they are similar games, because you basicly just build up a base, gather ressources, make units and attack. On a deeper level, they're completely different.
| quote: |
as for "dumbed down and automated" -that's simply due to its age, rather than some inherent design principle set out at the time. i think you'll find lots of automation in SC2 ;) |
Actually the automation has been subject to a lot of contraversy for that very reason. Agreed, it'll probably find it's way in just because it wouldn't be a very good buisness decision to release a game without it - but that also means that starcraft 2 will never be as great a game as the original. It's mechanics are being fundamentally altered, and every aspect of starcraft that differenciated good players from bad ones is being automated. In short, the game is being made more shallow to appeal to a bigger crowd than south korean pro gamers. Hopefully blizzard will find some ingenious way to compensate for all those lost actions and keep both the good players and the casual noobs happy.
| quote: |
i dont quite understand how you can accuse WC3 of being about "micromanagement" when in the same post you're talking about pro players with 300 APS's ;) if thats not micro i dont know what is!
|
Maybe they have different definitions in other games. In starcraft, all player actions are divided into two categories; macro and micro. Micro is everything relating to managing groups of units, unit control, special abilities, flanking, etc. Macro involves maintaining economy, producing workers, researching upgrades, expanding, maintaining and adjusting the number of production facilities to keep in sync with your economy, etc.
When I say pro gamers have APMs in the 300s, they're actions in general - not just micromanagement actions. That means you have different styles of players; some players are more macro-oriented, others are more micro-oriented, and some balance a bit of both - because, like I mentioned earlier, you always have more possible actions than you can realisticly accomplish.
Fundamentally starcraft is different from other RTS games because of this; Traditional RTS is about raw strategy. The game puts you in the place of an army general, and tests how well you plan and execute your actions. It presents you with a small and managable number of complex decisions. You have plenty of time to stroke your chin and think every action carefully. Who wins a match is determined by who the better strategist is. In contrast, starcraft bombards you with a huge number of very simple decisions. The game tests your ability to multitask, focus, endure pressure and make decisions at a very fast pace. The game gives you a number of different areas to focus your attention on by featuring large armies, large numbers of bases, and a ton of little things fighting eachother for your attention. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Of course - like I was saying, on a casual level, they are similar games, because you basicly just build up a base, gather ressources, make units and attack. On a deeper level, they're completely different.
Actually the automation has been subject to a lot of contraversy for that very reason. Agreed, it'll probably find it's way in just because it wouldn't be a very good buisness decision to release a game without it - but that also means that starcraft 2 will never be as great a game as the original. It's mechanics are being fundamentally altered, and every aspect of starcraft that differenciated good players from bad ones is being automated. In short, the game is being made more shallow to appeal to a bigger crowd than south korean pro gamers. Hopefully blizzard will find some ingenious way to compensate for all those lost actions and keep both the good players and the casual noobs happy.
Maybe they have different definitions in other games. In starcraft, all player actions are divided into two categories; macro and micro. Micro is everything relating to managing groups of units, unit control, special abilities, flanking, etc. Macro involves maintaining economy, producing workers, researching upgrades, expanding, maintaining and adjusting the number of production facilities to keep in sync with your economy, etc.
When I say pro gamers have APMs in the 300s, they're actions in general - not just micromanagement actions. That means you have different styles of players; some players are more macro-oriented, others are more micro-oriented, and some balance a bit of both - because, like I mentioned earlier, you always have more possible actions than you can realisticly accomplish.
Fundamentally starcraft is different from other RTS games because of this; Traditional RTS is about raw strategy. The game puts you in the place of an army general, and tests how well you plan and execute your actions. It presents you with a small and managable number of complex decisions. You have plenty of time to stroke your chin and think every action carefully. Who wins a match is determined by who the better strategist is. In contrast, starcraft bombards you with a huge number of very simple decisions. The game tests your ability to multitask, focus, endure pressure and make decisions at a very fast pace. The game gives you a number of different areas to focus your attention on by featuring large armies, large numbers of bases, and a ton of little things fighting eachother for your attention. |
cheers for that. i still disagree on a few points, but its obvious you know far far more about the game mechanics than i do so im probably wrong, hehe. im looking forward to SC2, but just to have a look at. i need a game with strategic zoom these days :D |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
SC was great in its day, but I don't understand why people still play it now. WC3:TFT is basically a new version of SC, with more tactical variables, an extra race, and heroes. |
I lawled. |
|
|
|
|
