EPTOn July 24 2007 17:10 FrozenArbiter wrote:
SC revolutionized the RTS genre how? Please give me just ONE example. I'm not even sure it was the first game to have 3 different races..?
SC revolutionized the RTS genre how? Please give me just ONE example. I'm not even sure it was the first game to have 3 different races..?
Dune would technically be the first rts with three races, however, the three races only differed in a few units (infantry, special units).
Warwind, which also had the first creeps, was the first with four asymmetrical races in 1996. It was also single-player driven, and never really got off the ground as far as competitive exposure goes. It had fog of war. If you are looking for a game full of innovation, I can think of no better example.
(http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warwind/review.html?sid=2531768) (http://www.csoon.com/issue19/warwind.htm)
So Starcraft can be said to be the first successful asymmetrical rts designed for competitive play.
:D
IIRC, it was also one of the first RTS with extensive voice acting - although this is arguable. Warcraft (the original) had basic voice acting in game, and voice-over campaign intros as early as 1994.
The only real thing starcraft had going for it in voice acting, was a greater amount of voice actors, and extended in game speech, which is quite debatable as revolutionary.
---
Starcraft wasnt the first with a map editor either. Warcraft 2 had that.
(info here: http://www.battle.net/war2/basic/map.shtml).
Visually, although Starcraft was beautiful, implemented 16 degrees of direction, and isometric topography and sprite transparency - it was also already, in some respects, behind the times. Total annhilation had very basic 3D terrain; climbable mountains with multiple angles or approach instead of Starcraft's ramps that only fit into two specific angles and required specific positions - 2D with impassable walls and graphic tricks to provide a 3d appearance.
Games like Settlers 3 already looked like this (in 1998):
![[image loading]](http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4656/settlers3el4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2089/settlers3bbg6.jpg)
---
Gamespot gave Starcraft a 9.1 (compared to a 8.8 for warwinds in 1996, and a 9.3 for wc2) ironically giving it the lowest category score in gameplay with an 8.
"Weighed on its own merits, Starcraft is an extremely well-crafted game, albeit one with a few notable problems. It doesn't stray far from the blueprint created by its predecessors (namely the Warcrafts and Command & Conquers), but it is, without a doubt, the best game to ever adhere to that formula."
--http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft/review.html?mode=gsreview
(well worth reading for humor value alone)
So why is StarCraft so incerdibly popular? Why does it make top 100 Lists of all-time games (even if IGN's top 100 was incredibly shitty)?
How can it be so popular in competitive play to award players 200K contracts, and popular enough in semi-competitive play to make "zerg rush" an established piece of pop culture?
---
Starcraft didnt have the closeness to 3D that CnC and Total Annihilation had.
But it didnt play like this either
Starcraft had up-to-date, clean graphics, but on top of that it had blistering speed. It's gameplay was initially knocked by some reviewers precisely because of that speed - the vulnerability, not just 20 minutes in, but 5 minutes in.
"Multiplayer has its own set of negatives, the major one being the predominance of rushing. Like it or not, creating a horde of the most basic units and attacking the enemy immediately is an effective tactic. Only a heavily defended base will survive an early rush of Terran Marines or Protoss Zealots"
In what other RTS game of that era, are plays like 5-pools and proxy-gates semi-regular occurences? How many games of that era made an absence of attacking in the first 5 minutes seem unusual?
Total Annihilation had 3D, but starcraft had a simplified system based around speed, tactical positioning, and basic precepts.
"The terrain in Starcraft is simplified; it's composed solely of ground on one of two levels (you have an upper and lower level, connected by conspicuous ramps) or open areas that can only be crossed by flying units. Since there are no naval units, rivers and seas may as well be open space. Trees offer cover for smaller units by giving them a defensive bonus, but this is one of Starcraft's better-kept secrets; you'll find people who've finished the game and never knew this. Also, units firing from above get a bonus. Otherwise, the maps are merely colorful backgrounds. While this could be perceived as a shortcoming, I feel it streamlines the game by allowing players to concentrate on unit management without suffering from task overload."
http://pc.ign.com/articles/080/080334p1.html
It is this constant task-overload that keeps players active, excited, and establishes the skill-gap between the novice and the expert.
In a time-period where many games lasted for close to an hour each, the method of starcraft was intentionally different: Get them in, Get them entertained, Get them out and right back in. Wham, bam thank you ma'am.
---
Original Warcraft has a maddeningly dumb AI, a 4 unit selection cap (which was unintuitive), and most importantly expected a player to only build from one barracks at a time.
War winds provided innovations galore, but mixed it with a single-player focus and development effort spent on puzzle elements.
Starcraft was based off of multiple production facilities, where most games expected one barracks, one hand of nod, one archery range. It had a forgiving goldilocks-style unit limit. It had a selection limit of twelve, a lack of unit stances which required the player to carefully watch all of his units. The focus on multiple production centers forced the player to constantly watch their base as well. One idle barracks is a disadvantage. 6 is a disaster.
In summary, Starcraft didn't succeed because of innovation, or graphics or neat-looking 'features'. It succeeded because "Starcraft may not do anything particularly new, but it does the real-time thing as well or better than any game before it."
It succeeded because of this:
Games as early as warcraft provided 'features' such as missed shots, while many other such as TA and CnC provided 'stances' - preset AI behaviours which allowed the computer to decide how individual units would attack in a way more sophiticated than hold position, attack move, move and patrol.
"There's a waypoint system, patrolling, and the like - but many of these options aren't particularly well implemented, and some of the options seem tacked on.[...]Starcraft most notably lacks the ability to define unit behavior (as in Dark Reign or Total Annihilation), leading to much micromanagement."
Many of those same games had beautiful, but ultimately distracting graphics.
Starcraft, with its elimination of AI hand-holding, limitless selection caps, along with the constant need for player interaction to make up for early vulnerability, created fast, exciting multiplayer games with a variety of offensive choices and no safety blankets. It changed rts into an active game.
![[image loading]](http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/03/BOXER.jpg)
---
Release dates:
Starcraft: 04/01/98
Total Annihilation: 09/30/97
Settlers 3: 11/30/98
Command & Conquer: 08/31/95
![[image loading]](http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6590/skypro8tb.gif)
