View Full Version : Starcraft a good game?
Is starcraft a good game?
Mouzafphaerre
11-30-2007, 06:23
.
Good old Starcraft? The legacy? The classical? ~:eek:
It's one of the gaming deities in the RTS pantheon. :stare:
.
Not my favorite RTS but it is the best.
Great game with one BIG FAULT!!!
Can you guess which one? :wall:
Kekvit Irae
11-30-2007, 11:00
Great game with one BIG FAULT!!!
Can you guess which one? :wall:
OMG ZERGRUSH KEKEKEKEKE
Rodion Romanovich
11-30-2007, 11:55
I'm not sure I would like the game if my first try at it would be now. It's one of the better, if not the best, of the old school RTS genre (clickfest RTS) though.
Starcraft a good game?
No. In fact, it is one of the WORST :saint:
OMG ZERGRUSH KEKEKEKEKE
Only chumps can't handle a zerg rush. :clown:
Back in college, I was actually quite proficient at StarCraft. I was into it to the point that I actually read play-by-plays of tournament matches to look for pointers or find where the loser went wrong. Of course, years later, now I'd probably have my hands full beating 1 AI as opposed to the 3 I used to be able to take out. :sweatdrop:
StarCraft was definitely a great game in its time, but it doesn't really hold much interest for me anymore.
Yes, it is one of the best RTS's of all time.
No, I was not very good at it. :embarassed:
Starcraft has the best army balance of any RTS I have ever played.
Privateerkev
12-01-2007, 00:41
A zerg rush was pathetically easy to counter if you were playing someone who always zerg rushed. Every gaming group had "that guy". The guy who used the exact same strategy every time.
Just set up mines, bunkers, artillery, and put SCV's behind every bunker to repair it. And watch the zerg rush break upon your defenses like a wave on a rock. Then dump your marines out the bunker and counter-rush.
The challenge is when you played a guy who only zerg-rushed sometimes. Because then you didn't know how to set up. You could set up to defend a zerg-rush only to get hit with air units.
doc_bean
12-01-2007, 18:48
I always thought it was overrated, but it was still a VERY good game.
I was talking about the 640x480 resolution. I would have continued playing that game if the game had other resolutions available.
I played it with a friend in network only, never had the game myself.
It was a bit fun, yes, but when I watched him play for a bit one day and could barely follow his mouse movement something inside me started to hate the game. :laugh4:
Needless to say the few times we played I wasn't really good at it, not even against the AI. :sweatdrop:
Meneldil
12-03-2007, 16:29
I always thought it was overrated, but I liked it.
I'm never been that good at multiplayer but I enjoyed the campaign.
Still today, I can't understand why people prefered it over Total Annihilation, which was IMO vastly better :inquisitive:
Now that I've played Warcraft 3 for hours, I couldn't get back to Starcraft. I gave it a new try when Starcraft II got announced, but I was like "Oh my, this game is ugly and boring" and gave up after the first campaign.
My advice : it's a good game, and if you really want to try it out, do not fear. It's probably almost free by now, and it might entertain you for some time.
Best strategy game ever, till Warcraft 3 came out, but Starcraft 2 will trump Warcraft 3 for sure :laugh4:
Crandaeolon
12-03-2007, 17:55
Still today, I can't understand why people prefered it over Total Annihilation, which was IMO vastly better
TA is a better "casual" game IMO, while Starcraft suits competitive play better. TA has all sorts of funky widgets to play with, and the limitless resources and comparatively stronger base defenses make turtling a somewhat viable strategy, unlike Starcraft. TA also has a slower pace and a more "strategic" approach, while SC is all about micromanagement.
Basically, they just appeal to different crowds i guess.
hellenes
12-04-2007, 15:31
Starcraft is just another pathetic Dune2 clo(w)ne...same lame basebuilding resourcecollecting shortcut memorising c***p...that has plagued the strategy games industry for almost 15 years...
Thanks god World in conflict and TW series exist...
A zerg rush was pathetically easy to counter if you were playing someone who always zerg rushed. Every gaming group had "that guy". The guy who used the exact same strategy every time.
Just set up mines, bunkers, artillery, and put SCV's behind every bunker to repair it. And watch the zerg rush break upon your defenses like a wave on a rock. Then dump your marines out the bunker and counter-rush.
The challenge is when you played a guy who only zerg-rushed sometimes. Because then you didn't know how to set up. You could set up to defend a zerg-rush only to get hit with air units.
That is why you should never play so defensive. The way to defend against zerg rushes(when playing terran) is to block your choke points with supply depots, barracks and SCVs while your marines are shooting at them from behind.
Starcraft is just another pathetic Dune2 clo(w)ne...same lame basebuilding resourcecollecting shortcut memorising c***p...that has plagued the strategy games industry for almost 15 years...
True, but it's the best of it's kind.
hellenes
12-11-2007, 18:55
True, but it's the best of it's kind.
Yeah but even the best cr***p still stinks...
I think that's a bit too harsh of a judgment. There is nothing wrong with a more simplistic level of strategy gaming. I don't see many people calling Chess a bad game because it doesn't allow you to build new pawns or upgrade your bishop. Sometimes simpler levels of gameplay can be fun simply for their gameplay efficiency.
Starcraft is nothing if not efficient. All three sides are perfectly balanced and at the start of the game none has an advantage over the other. All have options that allow them to utilize multiple strategies which can in turn be countered by opposing strategies. It really is as close to Chess as RTS games are likely to get. The speed of online play shouldn't be complained about either, since online play is competative. Competative Chess uses clocks too, and the slower player can often lose because of them.
But chess and videogames are not to be compared. The bottom line is that Starcraft isn't anything special. And if I would have to communicate the harsher truth, it is nothing but a piece of ****! Eh...! I mean...! I didn't say that! Not at all! :saint:
But chess and videogames are not to be compared.
Why not? I think strategy video games are very worthy of comparison to chess. Computers are simply an easier method of implementing complex strategy games. Chess and Risk on the computer are still Chess and Risk, yet they are also computer games. The Civilization series is essentially an extremely complex board game that would simply be too difficult to play without a computer assisting in the implementation. People compare the TW series (at least the STW/MTW campaign map) to Risk all the time. Why can't I make a similar comparison with Chess?
hellenes
12-12-2007, 18:39
I think that's a bit too harsh of a judgment. There is nothing wrong with a more simplistic level of strategy gaming. I don't see many people calling Chess a bad game because it doesn't allow you to build new pawns or upgrade your bishop. Sometimes simpler levels of gameplay can be fun simply for their gameplay efficiency.
Starcraft is nothing if not efficient. All three sides are perfectly balanced and at the start of the game none has an advantage over the other. All have options that allow them to utilize multiple strategies which can in turn be countered by opposing strategies. It really is as close to Chess as RTS games are likely to get. The speed of online play shouldn't be complained about either, since online play is competative. Competative Chess uses clocks too, and the slower player can often lose because of them.
Well clock chess ruins the whole point...same with the pathetic clickfest that SC is...also the most sad part of all the miserable Dune2 clo(w)nes is the whole build order/shortcut memorising...Ive seen "good" SC players play and it looked like some mental patients escaped from a high security institution...
Clearly the RTS genre looks like it was designed for a 12 years old that has no idea about flanking/morale/charge physics/high ground/shield angle etc etc...
Kekvit Irae
12-12-2007, 18:53
Clearly the RTS genre looks like it was designed for a 12 years old that has no idea about flanking/morale/charge physics/high ground/shield angle etc etc...
Which is the target audience. the *Craft series never claimed to be anything more than what it is, which is what makes it popular. Complexities, such as morale, flanking, physics, etc, can complicate a game to the point where a frantic battle is more of a chore than a battle. It wasn't until the Dawn of War series (where the standard RTS gameplay melded with complex ideals) when RTS finally got to the point where fun AND tactics can be appreciated.
That's not to say that there have been really great RTS games before DoW... Total Annihilation, TA: Kingdoms (my personal favorite), Close Combat all are fun and make use of ideals such as morale, high ground, and/or tactics.
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2007, 03:50
caught up in the multiplayer aspect of "is it a good game" i think you all forgot the campaign, the story, the movies...which at the time were the best out there. I sucked at MP online, but had a blast playing on LANS with friends, would play the campaign again one last time for old times sake...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.