Are you done?

His dog was killed by a Starcraft CD. That's why he has so much rage. That or it's just the usual teen angst.

No one is saying Starcraft is teh best evar or anything like that, it's just bizarre that people are calling it a horrible game while it really is not by any objective measure. It's like calling The Godfather a bad movie just because you don't like crime films.

It's fine to dislike the game from a personal standpoint, but that's just an opinion with pretty much zero support from facts. For example, I thought Bioshock was a rather mediocre game - it was far too easy on any setting and gameplay choices were either illusory (the character would be maxed out in all areas) or jarringly black and white (you ended up as either a saint or a villain.) The setting, story and atmosphere were not enough to redeem the game above mediocrity in my eyes. Still, I do acknowledge that it's a masterpiece in its own way.

There's no way around the fact that Starcraft is currently the most influential and successful RTS of all time, and the only RTS ever to continuously succeeded in competitive circles. That's no mere fluke of popularity but a result of fine design, balancing and continuous support.

SC is uniquely suited to competitive play because it includes the elements of both micro- and macromanagement in sufficient quantity to reward strategic thinking, tactical management and multitasking. It's fast and overwhelming, and that is good for competition.

I fully agree that other games (Sins, for example) are better suited for casual gaming because of their slower pace and streamlined gameplay, and this also seems to be what the gaming community expects these days. Direct Starcraft clones will not be able to capture an audience any more, and that's progress. That's also a unique challenge to developers wishing to create a competitive RTS - the game must be both friendly to beginners (to gain an initial playerbase) and sufficiently overwhelming at more advanced levels to enable competitive play.

Crandaeolon, hear hear! Great post!

Oh no one of the most successful video games of all times, one guy doesn't like it though, so it must be bad. I guess I've lived a lie, thanks for setting me straight.

Hey I can grossly paraphrase too, but that doesn't lend any weight to my position on this issue nor yours. How about we quote where I said anything that even remotely suggested any of those points. I can go ahead and point out where you say starcraft sucks and you don't like it for no other given reason than other people do and want more games like it. (By definition, I would be correct in my above post's statement, so keep trying)

So did you even read my post or are YOU the tool here. There are a lot of valid reasons to call starcraft one of if not the best RTS game ever made. So far you've provided it wasn't because "TA was better". Millions of people seem to disagree with it being a bad game, so far the burden of proof is on your insane position, not mine. So lets hear it, why is Starcraft NOT a good game? Please provide adequate points not personal dislikes. Your opinion doesn't matter, we've been over that, you have a right to have one, you have a right to say "I Dislike starcraft." However you've given ZERO evidence to support your claim of starcraft being a bad game, therefore you have no right to call it one.

@Jinx... I laughed.

Sigh...I just have to get into this...


So, you mean that Tomb Raider fans make other the action-adventure game being just Tomb Riader clone? Final Fantasy fans make all other JRPG just a clone? No developers decisions here?

It really seems that all the hate here are just because that Starcraft is popular...not much else...I mean, are there any basis of arguments in all the Blizzard bashers here? From what I read, no...

I am not fanboy or anything...just to be clear...actually I like SoaSE more than SC...

About the hype...if the game sells by hype alone, but not quality...why doesn't games made from famous movies outsell all other games? There has to be some other reasons too...and I do think that Blizzard tried their best to polish their games so that it will have good quality...see how many times they push back the release date of several games? And the support of the game...10 years and still support? Many games are support for only very limited amount of time...or the developer close itself even before the game was released! (Stolen...)

About the innovation argument...in the same genre, games will be the same in some ways...since I can easily say that "Dang, all RTS games are just gathering resource and build arimes to crush the other side...they're all the same!" or somesuch...but the point is that how can you make the game good enough that you can hook on to it...Starcraft succeed in that...millions of sales here proves the point...or like SoaSE, who innovate to make the game interesting, or Homeworld, or Dawn of War, or...yeah...I mean...Red Alert is fun even though in my opinion it's not that different from C&C!

Starcraft 2 is just going to be improvements of Starcraft, but that's the point of the game...because people love it that way...for me...Blizzard is doing good job already...

PS. Sorry if my post is a bit incoherent in ideas...I just want to express it out...

I'd just like to point out that the burden of proof is, in fact, yours since you made the original claim that it is one of/the best RTS ever made. That someone disputes it does not shift the burden of proof to them.

You can say that Starcraft was one of the most financially successful RTS games, which is factual and truth, but that does not automatically equate to it being one of the "best" - this claim you simply cannot prove (or disprove for that matter) and it will forever remain highly objective.

For the record, I liked Starcraft, I liked all the Warcraft games (played them since the original), the Diablos, WoW.. I've liked basically every popular game Blizzard released. I'm just making the distinction that financial success (directly linked to popularity, for obvious reasons) does not automatically equate to it being the "best" because "best" is objective You can measure units sold, you can measure the player base/popularity, you can measure longevity, but you can't measure "best" and everyone's definition of it varies.

I make no claims that it is the developers' decision(s), I just wish those squeaky wheels wanting another StarCraft clone wouldn't get the oil.


Apparently you overlooked the points about clunky interfaces, the inability for a unit to walk and chew gum at the same time, etc.... I think it is funny and ironic that the people liking this massively popular game are automatically assuming all those that don't are "sheep".


Yes but most games don't have an enormous fan base raving about how innovative they think their game is, when it is plainly not the case.


In many of our opinions it would be hard not to. Seriously, how would it be worse, aside from gross imbalance? They'll reduce how many unit we can select further from the original's limitation? Make it so not only can units not walk and fire at the same time, but they have to be ordered to fire and such orders can't be queued? Don't get me wrong, I am hoping SC2 will be a game I like, I plan to try the demo when there is one and if I like it I will buy it; I've just never found a Blizzard game that could hold my interest yet so I am not expecting much. I hope I will be pleasantly surprised.


They made a reputation for themselves of being complete and total crap.

I don't believe we were arguing that SC was extremely innovative.

I've said this many times, but perhaps not here - innovation is not required for a good game. A good game is all about execution

Annatar, hate to be a stickler, but the original claim was that Starcraft Two will not be good because Warcraft 3 was nothing new and innovative or strong as an RTS. Then the thread moved on to a few other topics, but the gist of those dubbed "anti-Blizzard" has been to find different reasons why Starcraft was a flop and Blizzard is a cigar-filled building of semi-professional developers who use their media connections to sell games...or something like that. Problem with finding reasons why Starcraft really wasn't good? No one has had any real objective evidence for foul play resulting in Starcraft's popularity.

As for the game being clunky and the UI outdated, well, this game is ten years old... Total Annihilation's UI wasn't much of an improvement at the time, only adding the ability of shooting-and-moving.

I'm afraid I don't have much more to offer in my argument after the posts I made at the beginning of this thread, but it seems to me that those who hate SC are set in their ways, some who love SC are set in there ways, many just see it as a good game, and then there is a troll or two running around. I tried ending this thread at page 2, but that didn't work

That is hardly the limits of Total Annihilations improvements. Try units intelligent enough to feed themselves (i.e. aircraft going to landing pads near there patrol routes when in need of repair) and fulfill their roles while on patrols (constructors repairing buildings and units and reclaiming debris and military units attacking enemies encountered in accordance with their stance). The ability to queue build orders and commands for an effectively unlimited length (oh wait, some Starcraft fanboys think that is a flaw). Then there was the fact that every weapon's firing was calculated fairly accurately according to physics (it was possible to hit a plane with artillery, but very unlikely). I could go on, but you get the point.

No one is saying Starcraft was a flop, or that it was built on hype alone. Merely that it is grossly overrated and nowhere near as perfect or innovative as many of its fans would like to believe.

Best is not subjective at all, favorite would be.

I'll say it again, what you think, what I think, they don't matter. It's what the companies think, and I'll bet you any game developer would rather have the level of success starcraft had than their own. These are companies, there is a set definition of best. The most money made. It's not about what you enjoy the most, it's about one thing. How much they made, I can't explain that any simpler. That's all there is to it. The only thing you can argue with here is semantics and what a word means to "you" when that's not what matters at all.

And yes setarcos, how terrible to have a game that requires micromanagement and overwhelms. Competitive gaming is BUILT around overwhelming the player for an RTS. The whole damn point is so that the faster you are, the more efficient you are, the better you are. Your level of skill determines what you can control, and how well you can do it. You would waste a couple seconds going to build that extra barracks or what have you, I'd build it in less than one. If you want a game where speed doesn't matter maybe play one where it has no bearing at all, maybe you've heard of the phrase "Turn based strategy" There are many deep games using TBS, I like quite a few, FF tactics, all the civ games, just to name a few. All great fun, many many hours of entertainment, strategy and it allows time to think about your moves. All in all, a different kind of fun, not more, not less. Different.

What else would you suggest we build on, nothing more than build order? Because let me tell you, if it wasn't for the overwhelm factor in an RTS, where you could do everything and anything perfectly because of queues, there is no skill involved. It's nothing more than math. And I'll be the first to say I like math, but a game that devolves into nothing more than a build order? No micro? No player speed? That's not what I want a RTS game for, if I want a numbers game there are plenty of better platforms for one than an RTS. Ones with far more depth, far more complexity, and more difficult math.

And wow, repairing buildings? How fundamentally genre changing. Not having to pay attention, taking away from the overwhelm factor, good idea. If you want to essentially castrate even more of the competitive elements. If you want a single player game go pick a 4x, not an RTS. I play both, when I want one style of gameplay, I choose the corresponding genre, surprise surprise. We all had high hopes for sins, it's a good game, but it's not what any one of us *really* wanted. So many people wanted 4x depth in an RTS, but there's a reason why it doesn't work. It takes all of the micromanagement out of it or it takes the overwhelm factor to the absolute extreme and makes it frustrating to play. Sins did the former. Granted micro can help, but it's really paltry. Build orders and player speed/knowledge are the entire game. Knowing how to counter each unit, how to get your econ faster, how to get your units faster. It's all about the knowledge and speed, the build order being part of knowledge.

So you're left with physics based weaponry, yes, that's just what we need. Hills having more of an effect on gameplay than skill. It's cool, it's innovative, and it's utter garbage in a multiplayer setting. Depending on the map in TA or sup com, some units value went through the floor, others through the roof. And all because of the lovely little thing called physics.

Not being able to fire and move, ever think there might have been a reason for that? Starcraft wouldn't be Starcraft if say marines could run away from zerglings and still be shooting, anything that melee'd would be useless. Micro would be even MORE powerful. For a competitive game, not moving and shooting allows a tighter balance between the units. It's not like they couldn't have made them move and shoot, they chose not to.

I love Sins, but call me a Heretic, I want Homeworld 3!

In SC2 you will be able to have lots of units, to make people like the OP happy. Starcraft requires strategy, but a different kind than Sins.

They are both different flavors of RTS. The thing that I know I will like about SC2 is its story mode, and the great custom games people will make.

I have a feeling that there will be a group in the RTS community that will not play SC2 and be like "it sucks, blah blah blah" in order to seem cool and rebellious.

Sins is an amazing game, but Blizzard is doing there own thing with Starcraft 2, which is making it better than it's predecessor. And if i'm playing my cards right, the game won't all be about rushing like the first Starcraft.