Comment by somat
1 day ago
Gratuitous cutscenes, annoying barks everywhere, huge useless animated portraits. It is basically the blizzard polish, looks better than it plays. Not that Starcraft plays bad, but none of the fluff contributes to gameplay. And that gameplay takes a lot more micromanagement than it needs to(some people like this. me, not so much).
It's highly ironic that you've chosen to take this position about starcraft, one of the best playing games of all time.
Like, no, cutscenes have nothing do with improving gameplay, but they don't detract from it either.
The game itself is the epitome of responding to a user's inputs precisely the way they would expect them to.
There's certainly some design decisions you can dislike, (some of which were basically technical limitations) like some of the hot keys and workers not rallying, but those are pretty minor compared to the sheer perfection that is the rest of the game.
You can prefer a different type of game, one where you give high level orders to units or start with an army instead of building it, but that's clearly a very different genre of game and not one that TA and its children are trying to be.
> The game itself is the epitome of responding to a user's inputs precisely the way they would expect them to.
I have to admit my experience lies mostly in Brood War, and surely "the game responds intuitively to user inputs" is not one of the ways you'd describe it? That game is notoriously clunky in how it handles user input, both in terms of selection limitations, unit path finding, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I love Brood War. It's the only competitive video game scene I've really cared about. But I love it for its clunky user experience (which requires mechanical mastery in addition to a sound tactical mind), not because it's so smooth.
Could you say more on this? I've tried StarCraft a few times over the years, thanks to a lucky thrift store find as a teen. Got a Battle Chest for $10 and the key hadn't even been registered! Never got close to beating it, though. Been a while since last time, but my lingering impression says it was always a confusing sequence of disconnected events taking an agonizingly long time to play out, and the controls were hella clunky and fiddly. I kept trying anyway because something about it feels real appealing, but I don't quite get it. But I feel like I want to get it, y'know?
I'd love to say more but I'm not sure where to start.
Your experience of the game is going to change dramatically depending on when you first played it and how much experience you have with the genre in general. For all my gushing adoration for the game, it is well over a quarter-century old at this point and even then it assumed a fair amount of knowledge and understanding about how the genre works.
When you say "close to beating it" I assume you're talking about the single player campaign, as opposed to the multiplayer death matches?
It's impossible for me to separate my current opinion from the decades of memories I have bound up in the game, but I think the campaign still holds up today, especially in the remastered version. It tells an interesting story with missions that are still fun to play, assuming you enjoy the basic rts build base make units attack enemy.
Like I said, it's hard to tell exactly what part of it you're having problems with, the fundamental gameplay loop is start with a small base, build workers, gather more resources, build bigger base, use bigger base to build army, use army to secure more resource areas to build even bigger base, use biggerer base to build biggest army, win map.
If you're having trouble actually beating the campaigns, 90% of the time the problem is people aren't building enough workers, the exact math gets a little complicated but as a very general rule of thumb you should probably have 25-26 workers for every set of minerals you have a base at, and you should be prioritizing building these workers above basically everything else.
Once you reach something like 8 workers mining minerals you can afford to both constantly build workers and build other units, then once you hit 26 or so you can stop building workers and focus on maxing out your army. Generally speaking the campaign AI is pretty forgiving, concentrating on defense for the first 10 minutes and then pushing out with a maxed out army works on like 90% of the maps.
Beyond that, I don't know what to say about clunky and slow. If the game is too slow, you can actually change what speed it plays at in the options menu, it actually defaults to a medium speed that nobody actually plays the game at, everyone plays at fastest setting, so dunno, maybe that's it. Other than that, units do exactly what you tell them to, no more, no less, that's the nature of this type of game, you're expected to be controlling essentially every unit on the map at all times.
4 replies →
The controls are a finely tuned machine in starcraft, as evidenced by the competitive scene with crazy apm.
If you dislike the micro required, thats fine, but just because it doesnt suite your preference doesn't mean its bad or clunky.
Just say “I dont like it”.
Thats fine.
If you want to “get” it, devote a few days to playing online multiplayer.
2 replies →
> Not that Starcraft plays bad, but none of the fluff contributes to gameplay. And that gameplay takes a lot more micromanagement than it needs to(some people like this. me, not so much)
As the gen Zs would say: Skill Issue.
It's an amusing complaint because there's nothing in the TA engine that would prevent players doing the same level of micromanagement as StarCraft, it just never developed that level of skill required to win games.
There's an element to that, but also, the more QoL you have and the smarter unit AI is, the less you have to do that. Yes, unit AI obviously won't ever play as good as you do but if you control a few units at key locations you'll outperform someone who's trying to control everything and do a mediocre job at it. You might say "how about they control every unit then" - works in games with a few units, way less so when you've got unit counts in the hundreds.
As Boomers would say: Mayfly Attention Span.
Starcraft is EXQUISITELY optimized for e-gaming and streaming. That means short games and relatively small maps and relatively small numbers of units and "snowballing". Small advantages from a micro battle or macro organization multiply quickly into an inexorable avalanche. It's why Blizzard has to CONSTANTLY jiggle things to bump the meta around.
Supreme Commander, by contrast, tended toward larger maps. Your Tier 1 unit rarely could find the opponent before they were already laying out Tier 2 buildings. Battles had ebb and flow and RECLAIMING after a battle occurred meant that if you survived a battle, you now had material to rebuild and possibly more than the person who launched the attack. The game was more homeostatic than avalanche. But that doesn't tend to make good e-gaming or streaming fodder for ADHD teenagers.
And the interface differences are MASSIVE. I could go on for HOURS about why I LOATHE the Starcraft interface and love the Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance one (and similarly Beyond All Reason). But, that's a personal preference thing.
>Starcraft is EXQUISITELY optimized for e-gaming and streaming.
Starcraft came way before that was even a thing
As someone with 100s of hours in SupCom and 1000s in SC2:
SupCom is interesting to play and boring to watch. Tier 1 rushes are map specific to your point… but then Tier 1 units are irrelevant.
Risk would be similarly boring to watch. It’s not that it’s a bad game (quite the contrary).
Blizzard has to balance the meta as the meta is so extensively studied - because it has an audience.
None of that has anything to do with why starcraft is popular, though. Starcraft has a long history of organized professional competition, and that's responsible for sustaining interest in the game.
At first people played Starcraft for the campaign, internet access in late 90s wasn't common enough for a game to thrive on mostly online multiplayer. And it was popular back then. And playing on LAN was more of "20 mins no rush" thing.
Starcraft came with battle.net and a mapeditor.
Quake3 was released a year(ish) later and effectively had no single player and it was a major success (by the standards of the day)
Being online was a major, major factor.
A campaign is not enough to sustain a game's popularity for decades. Use Map Settings and the competitive scene did that. The latter of the two is still around and single-handedly explains the game's continuing popularity.
Yeah, the TA campaign was... not very compelling.
By the time my crowd had reliable enough connections for multiplayer, the number of people who knew and liked Starcraft from that campaign was much higher than the number who'd either gotten to love TA from the campaign or from vs-computer matches.
1 reply →
So: money, gambling, ego bloating, greed, eye candy, narcotics?
What?
sound (and lack of it) is something that gives aa lot of balance to the game
in brood war you get info when units are made and sounds wben they die. unless an invisible dark templar one shots your units, then no sound
also brood war is the better game