EPTWhat makes StarCraft so good? Best/Worst Features - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
(b.m.)tontonba
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
8882
2720 Posts
many ways to play, in other games you usually can have only 1 unit mix vs 1 enemy race, there is great diversity of strategies! not that every matchup is always the same (like people talk about wc3) each matchup - is like another game, say you dont like ZvZ (many people hate it, many people love it) - so you can play TvZ which is completely different all these diversity allows players to create their own STYLE also players control everything - no autocast etc there is no BEST strategy there is no BEST unit, most units are used (I think protoss still has a GREAT potential, because protoss players for long time didnt use DAs, reavers etc, especially vs zerg, also arbiters; queens are starting to get popular - with some success) - look on other strategy games - you have 10 types of tanks - and you just produce the best tank. such thing never takes place in sc, because every unit has it's own purpose the game doesnt have some strange rules, you learn fast what is happening interface is GREAT. Ive tried playing warwind2 - omfg - no idea what to do etc.. clear graphics, you always know what you see. take total annihilation - units look like squares walking over brown canvas great SOUND FX. units have lots of acknoledgements, not 1. actutally many people click on the units after they buy the game just to hear all of them worst features hmm, actually hard to get any, especially when you consider that the game is SO old. bad pathfinding - frankly speaking I dont know what you mean - pathfinding is great, especially in comparison to other games made at that time. lack of ladder support (blizzard HAS the technology to do it, but they wouldnt gain any money of it) - people created pgtour tho. some people play fastest maps - they need "simpler" game, however most of them stop playing them after they meet somone who will teach them the "art of non-money". to some degree bad editor (BUT it was great during the time it was created) - unable to make mods, say marine shooting with interceptors etc (yes I know it was possible recently, unfortunately blizzard patched it) -however all these features would make old computers choke | ||
|
HnR)Pride
Canada297 Posts
On September 14 2005 10:20 LaZyScV wrote: Good: 10.)The game doesn't do things for you; you have to clone units yourself, you have to send workers to mine, and so on. I can't really think of anything bad about it, besides stuff that's due to its age; like the ladder, no AMM, et cetera. This is probably what has made a lot of people stick with the game for as long as they have. Despite the fact that the graphics are so dated and there are a limited number of units the game is immersive. Everything you do in the game has reprecussions, and you see it right before your eyes.You feel as though you have full control. This is also what makes the game so competitive in my mind. That's the short and sweet of it. | ||
|
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
.(-.-) o(')(') It's important that in the first 1-3 mintues you must - Draw attention - Generate interest Just like what I did with my bunny ^^/ For expample telling how successful this 7-years-old game is, so that people want to listen more to know why. After that you can discuss about the game's characteristics and stuff. key: be prepared Their goal is to compare multiplayer features and interfaces of the best online games in the market. Lots of people in here were mislead and forget the goal of the talk show. Starcraft was successful mostly because of the gameplay itself (which are IMO strategy deepth, micro management and competitive level). However, in term of multiplayer feature and interfaces, is Starcraft best ? In order to analyse this matter, you should focus on these software qualities: - Usability - Robustness - Security Correctness is there by default. The rest Extendability/Reusability/Portability are minor Usability The most important quality nowadays in the software market. You should spend at least 15 mintues talking about this quality. - Is the multiplayer feature easy to use ? From registing a name, choosing gate way to logging in. - Easy to create game? Easy to find a game u want and join it ? Additional features: - Friendlist management: easy to add/remove people ? Easy to see friend status online/offline. Should there be an option to choose how people see you as offline or online (privacy) ? - Chatting room (channel): easy to create/manage the channel? issue of mass spamming ? - Etc etc As you see in Starcraft most of them are standard and simple. Maybe that's the reason why their server can handle hundreds of thousands clients everyday. In short-term they may be impressed by eyecandy look, expensive features, etc. But in long-term, the users often value something simple, easy to understand and fast. Robustness Pretty boring, this is kind of standard so talk about it if you want, for exmaple how starcraft deals with exceptional cases in multiplayer mode? What and why sc responde when - someone lag/dropping, - map loading is corruptted - ...... Security Same as above Personalization One more important thing is the ability to personalize. In SC, the users can create their own screenname and profile, which is too simple IMO. In somegame the user can create their own avartas, signature, drawing, famous quote, favorite race, etc which is interesting IMO | ||
|
greatmeh
Canada1964 Posts
| ||
|
Kacas
Brazil3143 Posts
| ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
| ||
|
HaiVan
Bulgaria1698 Posts
 ! | ||
|
Camila_br
Brazil529 Posts
control ever no automatic-shitty-things like autocast or rally peons to minerals | ||
|
Ukyko
Netherlands163 Posts
-Low tech units don't become obsolete. -great mobility and speed of units (fast pace). -combo's that make a difference---->alot of viable strategies and styles. -Relatively low hitpoints so real advantages can be exploited and fast reaction is key. Camila: Controlling everything? Common rallying workers to mine automatically is a no brainer and has nothing to do with strategy or gameplay. Is that what makes this game fun. I have poor control but the game is still good to me. If babysitting no brainer functions is the best feature to you that is puzzling. Implying that funtionalities in other games should be cropped? | ||
Chill
Calgary25996 Posts
1. Terrible chat GUI: Battle.net is ugly and sucks. The commands are basically unknown (other than /w, /f, /time I don't know what else I can do; sometimes I randomly hit alt-v or alt-n and Enter / Leave Notifications gets toggled, wtf?). It's ugly. 40 people per channel is such a limit. People get flooded when they shouldn't, and yet when people are clearly spamming just under the flood limit they remain. The chat window is so small, 50% of the space is advertisements or wasted with massive buttons that generally aren't even used. The friends button is useless (Yes I know there are uses but really it's useless  ). Very, VERY little bot support.2. Terrible username support: Very limitting name size. Illegal characters are annoying. No clan support at all. Very limitting friends list support (who isn't constantly shuffling to fit 25 on it?). Profile is glitchy and limitting; There's a box that serves no purpose (was age). 3. Terrible pregame GUI: Creating and joining games is simple but also difficult. It's hard to find the game you're looking for. Matchmaking would make this so much easier. 8 player maps are limitting when you want more obs. Map preview is terrible, you can barely see anything. 4. TERRIBLE LADDER: Ladder in its current form is 100% unusable. A seemless ladder should be implemented and supported by Blizzard to end all the need for external ladders. Tournament support should be present. Clan support should show in the ladder. Team ladders, ffa ladders, varying point systems for diverse maps, maps of the week, a rating system that better reflects the Starcraft community. 5. In game problems: The drop player functionality should be improved, so you can find out who is lagging easily and get rid of them when they're disrupting the game. A lot more functionality should be given to UMS map makers, as well as melee map makers. The 200 psi/control/supply limit should be waved in non-competitive game modes. The sprite limit should be increased to reflect better computers. Resolution should be increased. | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
| ||
|
paaltje
Netherlands359 Posts
| ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
| ||
|
1sd2sd3sd
660 Posts
| ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
-Very easy to learn (special thanks to the tutorial). -3 completely different races. -Balanced multiplayer gameplay. -Free and easy internet servers. -Captivating single player campaigns and storyline. -Thanks to the races being so different the strategical combinations are unlimited. | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
| ||
|
Camila_br
Brazil529 Posts
On September 14 2005 14:27 Ukyko wrote: Camila: Controlling everything? Common rallying workers to mine automatically is a no brainer and has nothing to do with strategy or gameplay. Is that what makes this game fun. I have poor control but the game is still good to me. If babysitting no brainer functions is the best feature to you that is puzzling. Implying that funtionalities in other games should be cropped? ok then, just put auto-build scv too so you dont have to play at all. if you dont want to care about your workers, play dow, you just need 1 or 2 there. if you cant control your workers + your army + supply + resources, I think bw is not a game for you. go watch television, you can micro your remote. | ||
|
ubergamer15
United States645 Posts
And its cheap! | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
- units die quickly - it's easy to see what's going on in a battle (anyone can quickly tell which units are attacking, which ones have been killed, etc.) - you can observe the action from a 3rd-person perspective (in contrast to FPS and racing games) - the 3 races are vastly different, so there is more variety of action - every match is more or less unique Edit: worst feature: requires high apm (compared to a lot of other games). This excludes or hinders a lot of people from making progress in their level of play, I think. | ||
| ||
