|
Hi All,
I was asked to give a 20-30 minute talk in the Online Gaming Symposium regarding the best/worst features, implementations, etc of StarCraft.
Their goal is to compare multiplayer features and interfaces of the best online games in the market.
My goal for this talk is to list all reasons of why StarCraft is the best damn game ever and why it rocks all other games (and perhaps what improvements could be made on the game).
I would appreciate your help in coming up with different reasons for this.
Thanks!
|
3 completly different races which are !balanced !
|
cause you get addicted too it playing or not, if you have played it once...
i mean there are manymany people who mainly watch replays and do mot really play that much...
|
All the events, how hard it's to be really good..etc
|
I'll begin by adding the most important best feature:
-Terran
Then, after that:
-Great racial diversity, and by this I mean real racial diversity. The races all behave very differently in the way they play, and the units they have aren't just the same unit with a different customs(word?).
-Balance!
-Huge learning curve. This is, though, what makes people migrate to money maps, so I'll leave it to you to decide if it's a good or a bad feature ^^
-Clear graphics. Even though they're 640x480 and pure pixel, you can see everything going on at the screen with good clarity which is a thing many 3D games lack =|
-Excellent UI! Even though pretty much every thing Blizzard makes has this, you're likely to grit your teeth at games like DoW where you have to click your marines 3-4 times so they actually go somewhere a lot of the time, or at least that's what I experienced >.>
-Very good strategical depth, especially for a game with a small number of units (compared to new RTS's), and so old.
That's my 2 cents ^^
|
|
|
is awesome32274 Posts
You have tons of options to play the game ums, 2v2, 1v1, Tons of maps, lots of races and a huge learning curve which helps in finding a lot of new things in the same game.
GAMELPAY.
Unit reponse, races...
|
Very responsive UI. I mean, Koreans bang on it at 350 APM and it handles it no problem.
|
|
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Best features - incredible balance to very deep depths - after all this time still no major imbalance found.
Usually in games when someone thinks "how do you counter XXX i can't stop it it's so hard" they'll say "probably imbalanced", but in BW people think "i haven't looked hard enough for the proper counter".
Worst features, which no one has yet touched upon - horrible horrible pathfinding / AI, overall crappy maps with the game (with a couple exceptions).
And it's debatable about some of BW's features - are they features or limitations in the game? (for example only selecting 12 units, situations like not being to cast psi storm if you have a zealot + high templar selected, being unable to select multiple enemy units, etc.)
|
-addictive
-you can play for fun and for points, sometimes money and prizes ~.v
-you have lots of friends on bn
-replays
-map editor
-old game and still new tactics are produced =)
-your next game will never be the same
-u can play it on nearly every PC =)
-u dont need to have very fast IC
-like they say "one week to learn it, lifetime to master it" =]
-everybody can play it ~~
-GAMEPLAY !
-it takes lots of attention when you're playing =)
- even if u stopped playing on BN, u will be still connected with this game ;-P (like me -_-)
|
mnm: how did you land that job?
|
Alright, well, I'll try to give a decent list. Great that you were asked to do this 
In my opinion, there are two main reasons for StarCraft's success.
The first reason is the nature of the game. Easy to learn, impossible to master. The game was so great that the game itself has evolved beyond what anything Blizzard expected or invisioned. Instead of using infantry versus Protoss, the game allowed for people to be inventive enough to think of wall-ins and utilize the lift building feature to its fullest extent (for example). The game is fun regardless at what level you play. It is also one of the games that requires an impossible amount of skill. Many BW players find themselves bored playing other games like WC3, since they are simply used to another pace. It's like a chess player playing checkers.
The second reason, in my opinion, is its availability to the masses. Not only does it not require an amazing computer to play, it can be played whenever, wherever there is an internet connection. Battle.net provided StarCraft with a huge building base, and StarCraft just grew from there.
I'll now just give a basic list.
- Replayability (not replays, but the fact that you can play it over and over and over)
- The game evolves over time (most anyone here would probably rape Tsunami when he played in the beginning if he played the same gamestyle he did back then today, simply because of game evolution, not even mentioning players' evolution in micro and macro).
- The game is not based on luck that is not controlled by the player. What I mean is, in a given game, a player might get lucky by scouting a particular position and finding his opponent on his first try, but he could have equally scouted another position. This, opposed to finding an item (like in Red Alert) and getting lucky by finding 10000 minerals or something like that.
- Learning curve. A better player will easily beat a worse player. This isn't the case in a lot of games. The better player has to play either a long, safe game or he might potentially lose, even if the player has poorer macro, strategy, and micro.
- Pace. Pace is a very important part of SC, simply because without the speed at which SC runs it would be boring. However, the pace / speed adds to the learning curve. Strategy still beats speed, though, as many players have already proved to us.
- The races are so different that you in fact need different skills to play different matchups. In TvZ, for example, you require a lot of micro. PvT, however, requires a lot of macro, and little amount of late-game micro will save you (unless we're talking about cars and such).
|
Easy to learn and start playing.
You can constantly improve at it
A lifetime to master
|
It's art.
Wether you play creatively or not may count a bit, but eventually your reactions, micro/macro ability, tactical decisions confronted, mixed to those of your opponent in one single game, that's art.
|
starcraft evolves with your characteristics.
for example: xellow "Perfect" terran because he doesnt allow any mistakes
Yellow "STorm" zerg because he attacks like hell
Nal Ra "Creative" toss and on and on
There is no "set" ways to play.
|
Another great feature of SC is that there is no "super" unit and that almost every unit can be useful from early to late game.
|
i think i'll just steal pieces of other peoples because so many things good listed already...
On September 14 2005 10:06 Beamo wrote:
3 completly different races which are !balanced !
a major point
also On September 14 2005 10:14 Ryshi wrote:
Very fast paced
and of course not just due to speed of movement/attacking but
On September 14 2005 10:10 Dingo_egret wrote:
-Clear graphics. Even though they're 640x480 and pure pixel, you can see everything going on at the screen with good clarity which is a thing many 3D games lack =|
-Excellent UI! Even though pretty much every thing Blizzard makes has this, you're likely to grit your teeth at games like DoW where you have to click your marines 3-4 times so they actually go somewhere a lot of the time, or at least that's what I experienced >.>
On September 14 2005 10:20 LaZyScV wrote:
5.)Units and buildings have low HP, thus it doesn't take forever to kill things.
6.)There's tons of things to watch and do; mini-map, expansions, building workers and telling them to mine, building army while watching the enemy, and other various things.
7.)Unit movement is smooth, and so are the controls.
more good stuff:
On September 14 2005 10:16 IntoTheWow wrote:
You have tons of options to play the game ums, 2v2, 1v1, Tons of maps, lots of races and a huge learning curve which helps in finding a lot of new things in the same game.
and
On September 14 2005 10:46 Oxygen wrote:
- The game is not based on luck that is not controlled by the player. What I mean is, in a given game, a player might get lucky by scouting a particular position and finding his opponent on his first try, but he could have equally scouted another position. This, opposed to finding an item (like in Red Alert) and getting lucky by finding 10000 minerals or something like that.
- Learning curve. A better player will easily beat a worse player. This isn't the case in a lot of games. The better player has to play either a long, safe game or he might potentially lose, even if the player has poorer macro, strategy, and micro.
- The races are so different that you in fact need different skills to play different matchups. In TvZ, for example, you require a lot of micro. PvT, however, requires a lot of macro, and little amount of late-game micro will save you (unless we're talking about cars and such).
etc. etc.
also something that was only mentioned a little i think has been the way the environment/maps can have a huge affect on the game, i love the way its realistic in certain important points (there are flying units, you can transport ground units over air) while at the same time withholding the realistic stuff that is unnecessary (should be obvious)
remember we still have to consider stuff like despite
On September 14 2005 10:20 LaZyScV wrote:
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.
it is important for
On September 14 2005 10:23 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Worst features, which no one has yet touched upon - horrible horrible pathfinding / AI, overall crappy maps with the game (with a couple exceptions).
And it's debatable about some of BW's features - are they features or limitations in the game? (for example only selecting 12 units, situations like not being to cast psi storm if you have a zealot + high templar selected, being unable to select multiple enemy units, etc.)
that last thing is a very important point, it is vital that games are not "newbified" such as if broodwar had auto-lockdown or auto-cloning for scourge, yet equal is the problem of not making needless obstacles for people, such as i think bw could actually be improved if a rally to a mineralfield for workers would actually have them automatically mine
|
yeah as oxygen said "easy to learn, impossible to master". this means that with enough practice you can always get to a completely new level thus dominating the former champions. this reduces the influence of luck by a lot not only between pros but also between mid- and lowlvl players. if the top keeps rising in skill, the skill range of other players increases too and so the chance of having two ppl play at exactly the same strength is almost non-existant (imagine two players going 21:20 in a bo41).
i'm a zerg player so i will give two zerg examples:
a) the use of dark swarm - this spell has become popular maybe a year ago. against the new terrans zergs could hardly put up a fight without it anymore.
b) muta-micro: you wouldn't expect any development in matters of micro, especially for such a micro heavy unit as the mutalisk after 7 years but there was one. you didn't see such a perfect muta micro before julyzerg and ipx (talking about hit&run at a frequency just as fast as the normal attack frequency). july has taken down m&m forces with like 7-8 mutas which would have been estimated stronger than ~14 mutas half a year before.
|
The greatest thing about brood war is that it is a game with such depth that you can play for hours and hours a day for 7 years and still not be even close to mastering it;)
|
i like how when u click on a unit a lotta times... he says something SILLY. : O woooooooah
|
great gameplay - most companies concentrate on graphics, instead of gameplay. take tetris for example - this game has bad graphics but you can play it and play it..
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
|
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.
|
.().()
.(-.-)
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
|
I think it is absolutly, power to the extreme 100% max, that bw is so damn good because of the units and the different counters, and of course because of the community
|
|
|
|
|
I have this friend who has played SC for a long time relatively often (zerg user) and he could not make a bnet account with positive stats. Yet the same guy played WC3 for like 3-4 months and he rarely lost games in bnet pubbies , and what he said is that in WC3 u do the same thing over and over again , u dont have to control more than say 15 units at a time and it was boring. He is recently trying to play SC again with terran and he is fucking enjoying it despite the fact he wins 1 in 3/4 games , he is saving reps and emailing them to me asking for tips on how to make his game stronger , he has played the game since 98/99 and is still excited about every win he gets ! Thats the only game i play and thats the only game i can see myself playing like 10 years from now as long as i have someone to play with !
|
best
control
ever
no automatic-shitty-things like autocast or rally peons to minerals
|
Best feature: diversity in units and Matchups.
-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?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
I haven't really heard many people talk about the bad, so here's what I think:
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.
|
starcraft simply is one of the best things that have happened in Computer games history
|
U can play it with a 56 kb modem that means many people can play it
|
Best damn balanced gameplay from three unique races. Easy to learn, for skills of all kind. And probably wont fit in with your multiplayer talk, but the campaign and its storyline is superb as well.
|
The fact that no matter who you are you can enjoy the excitement of watching the story of a single one versus one unfold before your eyes.
|
-At first sight the game seems too simple and childish but that becomes irrelevant very soon given its strategical depth. Now it seems to me that simplicity > realism.
-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.
|
Very few people mentioned this but I always love SC cuz a matter of 5 seconds can be more than game turning..... it can seal your coffin or put you on top of your hill. It's sooo fast and tense. Never a moment of true security in a even match.
|
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.
|
Extremely well balanced, long learning curve, short tech tree (meaning early units don't get obsolete), huge variety in gamplay/replay value.
And its cheap!
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
StarCraft is entertaining to watch, even for a person who knows nothing about the game:
- 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.
|
thats just cause youre slow bill ^^
|
I'd have to disagree with the notion that BW is entertaining to watch even if you don't play it. Most of my friends don't play starcraft, and no, I couldn't convince them to watch me play a 20 minute game to save my life. Before I learned to play, I hated it. Everything looked the same. It really is just sprites moving around, you know.
It would only be entertaining for non-players if they enjoy other RTS games, and yet for some reason have never played BW (which seems like an impossibility if ever there was one).
|
I think the capabilities of the map editor giving life to tons of entertaining UMS map games deserve much, MUCH more credits than anyone in this topic is giving it. Has it even been mentioned at all?
The UMS games account to a part of why the game is still alive.
|
On September 14 2005 17:10 radar14 wrote:
I'd have to disagree with the notion that BW is entertaining to watch even if you don't play it. Most of my friends don't play starcraft, and no, I couldn't convince them to watch me play a 20 minute game to save my life. Before I learned to play, I hated it. Everything looked the same. It really is just sprites moving around, you know.
It would only be entertaining for non-players if they enjoy other RTS games, and yet for some reason have never played BW (which seems like an impossibility if ever there was one).
You ever watched a korean audience watching some major league games? A number of them are elderly people who I'd doubt ever touched an RTS game in their life.
|
the game is good because of the balance between the three races, and more importantly, the motto that blizzard followed when making the game - easy to learn, hard to master - which allows for almost endless replayability and learning: There's always something you can do better the next game.
|
In Korea, the announcers are suprisingly good, but without it people wouldn't know what's happening. However, Broodwar lends itself to being announced (slower games won't work, and some things in Broodwar just look so cool, like a push being broken PvT)
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On September 14 2005 17:10 radar14 wrote:
I'd have to disagree with the notion that BW is entertaining to watch even if you don't play it. Most of my friends don't play starcraft, and no, I couldn't convince them to watch me play a 20 minute game to save my life. Before I learned to play, I hated it. Everything looked the same. It really is just sprites moving around, you know.
It would only be entertaining for non-players if they enjoy other RTS games, and yet for some reason have never played BW (which seems like an impossibility if ever there was one).
But how does BW compare to other games in terms of entertainment value?
And as tfeign said, it's clear that BW is a form of entertainment, at least in Korea. In contrast, Warcraft 3 is comparatively boring to watch, which would help to explain why it's not as popular as SC in Korea.
|
The only allies are enemies
|
something vital was forgotten so far: CHAOS!!!
units do not move exacly where u tell them (though some are more precise), they also might fail to response immediately (for example drones being lazy for 2 secs when they are morphed), a large group of units separating randomly from each other when somehow some of them get above others. this tiny aspects of the game make it UNIQUE!
|
On September 14 2005 19:15 TrentLane wrote:
something vital was forgotten so far: CHAOS!!!
units do not move exacly where u tell them (though some are more precise), they also might fail to response immediately (for example drones being lazy for 2 secs when they are morphed), a large group of units separating randomly from each other when somehow some of them get above others. this tiny aspects of the game make it UNIQUE!
If your making a game in which there are battles of thousands of units then that feature could be cool and make the game more realistic. But in SC most of the battle are of 12-24 units and you really don't want it since those unit are abstracted and represent much larger army in real life, so chaos would ruin the game. However the current AI of the game is chao enough already so w/e
|
You can never be the best or undefeated.
|
it's entertaining to observe
|
umm... does nobody appreciate the community? I think that's one of the nicest things about BW and b.net. From the pubbie clans to the programmers giving us great utilities. Not only do you get to test your mind and body vs another person, you also get to feel welcome and a part of something. Maybe everything on line is like this?? any how I remember way back when nohunters was still busy, and boxer was pillaging wcg after wcg and god are his games on jungle story vs that protoss were amazing, but if it wasn't for the community I wouldnt' have seen them. I think that's the best feature is all these good people ^^
|
On September 14 2005 19:59 yare wrote:
umm... does nobody appreciate the community? I think that's one of the nicest things about BW and b.net. From the pubbie clans to the programmers giving us great utilities. Not only do you get to test your mind and body vs another person, you also get to feel welcome and a part of something. Maybe everything on line is like this?? any how I remember way back when nohunters was still busy, and boxer was pillaging wcg after wcg and god are his games on jungle story vs that protoss were amazing, but if it wasn't for the community I wouldnt' have seen them. I think that's the best feature is all these good people ^^
sc community rocks!
tl.net rocks!
|
ok how do you generate that kind of community though? what about the game brings people together like that? i do agree that the sc community rocks. =) it is what brought me to wcg.
|
uhhh... only bad thing I can find is that goons are dumber then rocks; cause atleast rocks can move when you really need them to (throw them), but you can't even do that to a goon. Sometimes it just stands in one place or walks and doesnt't shoot when you tell it too! omfg I hate them
|
imo
best pro: Very competitive game with lots of action and different "plays" for every match-up, making it (for some) as exciting to watch a BW match as it is to watch an athletic sport. Also leading to communities such as this one.
worst con: Like many online video games, balance depends a lot on the map design, one flaw in the map design could make one or more match-ups really favor one race more than the other.
|
Because it's a game about CRAFTING STARS!!!
Not to be confused with tombraider, STARRING CROFT!!!
Aight? Nuff said.
PS: Kerrigan vs Lara..?
|
You could also mention some UMS maps that have been made so players can practice and improve their micro and stuff, like Team Micro Arena, or those other ones where u have to kill a archon with 5 mutas etc...
Also add some Pimpest Plays, that will pwn
|
On September 14 2005 10:46 Oxygen wrote:
It's like a chess player playing checkers.
exactly!
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On September 14 2005 21:00 mnm wrote:
ok how do you generate that kind of community though? what about the game brings people together like that? i do agree that the sc community rocks. =) it is what brought me to wcg.
- BNet, a free place to find and play games
- it's a great game that can hold the interest of its gamers for a long period of time (so much so that some people just can't quit!  )
- it's a well-balanced RTS, so it tends to attract a relatively intelligent audience (relative to other genres)
- it has top-notch, fast-paced, and strategic gameplay, which again tends to attract a relatively intelligent and lively audience
- StarEdit (leads to the mapmaking community and also to new usermaps, which help keep the game alive and interesting for long-term gamers)
- new stuff is always happening "in the news", mainly because of the progaming in Korea
|
I'm not sure if anyone has touched on it yet but... Battle.net. I mean it's not part of the game it's self but it's incorporated into it and bn is one of the best game servers.
|
Belgium6771 Posts
I've been playing this game for about 6 years now and am still not bored of it. When I dont feel like competitive playing I just go play some micro ums, watch a replay/vod or get on Teamliquid
Its great how there's always something around bw which keeps my love for the game strong as ever
Oh and I think it's safe to say how StarCraft is probably one of the games with the biggest skills and talent on pro-level. Every progamer has his own style and thus even though a matchup, say TvZ, is being played by Boxer and Oov, you will never see the same style and specific strategy.
|
I think what makes starcraft great is partially the community is very supportive of it and we are what is keeping this game alive, another thing is the free online play with battle.net which is one of the easiest online set ups for a game i have ever used, and did i mention it was free? this i think is really what has kept brood wars going over the years, not as coherent as i could wish for but thats what i think, thanks
|
Compared to Chess or Baduk(GO) Starcraft has a far less amount of strategies, so when u define the variety of possible strategies as the only quality of a strategy game Sc couldnt have succeeded.
Imo the reason for the great success is the perfect balance of Sc. And im NOT meaning the balance of the 3 races, but the well-regulated difficulty of technical skill. The most important thing for a multiplayer game is the question how far the development of skill can go. Ant this question depends on the difficulty of technical skills.
When the technical use of a game would be too difficult people might be interested in mastering it but the development would stop in a level due to lined human abilities. When its too easy it wouldt go further either cause ppl might get bored of it. So gamemakers try to find the point between it. And Sc has reached the nearest of all RTS to this point so it has the largest possibility of skill development, considering multitasking and game speed .
|
On September 15 2005 10:32 Greyvy wrote:I think what makes starcraft great is partially the community is very supportive of it and we are what is keeping this game alive, another thing is the free online play with battle.net which is one of the easiest online set ups for a game i have ever used, and did i mention it was free? this i think is really what has kept brood wars going over the years, not as coherent as i could wish for but thats what i think, thanks
as i read this post, i just had to post a question to all of you. Will you play SC if bnet was to be paid for its services?
|
Its like art
it can be beautiful
|
Even a god damn pentium 2 200 can run the game perfectly.
Good thing that makes this game more entertaining is the fact that attacks can occur in any position of the map and players lose and train tons of units to win, unlike warcraft 3 where sometimes you can keep some units alive throughout the whole game.
|
they coat the CD with crack
|
On September 15 2005 13:59 EntertainMe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2005 10:32 Greyvy wrote:I think what makes starcraft great is partially the community is very supportive of it and we are what is keeping this game alive, another thing is the free online play with battle.net which is one of the easiest online set ups for a game i have ever used, and did i mention it was free? this i think is really what has kept brood wars going over the years, not as coherent as i could wish for but thats what i think, thanks as i read this post, i just had to post a question to all of you. Will you play SC if bnet was to be paid for its services?
no way
|
On September 15 2005 14:58 lil.sis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2005 13:59 EntertainMe wrote:On September 15 2005 10:32 Greyvy wrote:I think what makes starcraft great is partially the community is very supportive of it and we are what is keeping this game alive, another thing is the free online play with battle.net which is one of the easiest online set ups for a game i have ever used, and did i mention it was free? this i think is really what has kept brood wars going over the years, not as coherent as i could wish for but thats what i think, thanks as i read this post, i just had to post a question to all of you. Will you play SC if bnet was to be paid for its services? no way
T_T i wouldn't either.. my heart would be broken..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
