🚀 go-pugleaf

moongateclimber wrote:
> 
> "Spork" <no@no.com> wrote
> > is starcraft still the best rts game out there?
> 
> I don't want to look like a troll, I'm just a honest lurker...
> 
> Of course the question ultimately boils down to a matter of tastes. I
> greatly admire Blizzard in general and SC in particular, but I think
> there are other games out there which at least reveal directions in
> which SC could be significantly improved (in SC2 we hope?). Most are
> really quite obvious; it's just a matter of the point in time when SC
> was released.
> 
> 1) Graphics. From a *merely technical* point of view, I think there's
> little doubt that Age of Kings, Empire Earth, Homeworld and others
> have superior graphics than SC. The guys at Blizzard have done the
> best they could, and more, given the technical limitation provided by
> the low resolution. I think the closest games to SC in this respect
> are some of the Command and Conquer series (I recently bought Red
> Alert 2 platinum and the graphics style immediately made me think
> Starcraft). They have proven more skill than anyone else (IMO of
> course) in the "artistic" department. Still SC runs in low resolution,
> and is nowhere as detailed, or smoothly animated as AoK.
> 

I don't know. They ARE low-res, sure, but quite well-done. I prefer 2d
graphics to 3d (unless they are zoomed in). The appearance of the game
is a plus for me. They do, of course, look worse on bigger monitors. I
haven't played AoK, but I have played the demos for AoE and GB. SC's
movement seemed smoother than those games to me.

> 2) Skirmish. Once you've done SC's campaigns (which are by far the
> best I've seen insofar in a RTS), and if you cannot or won't go
> multiplayer, SC is ready to be put back into your shelf. AFAIK, it is
> almost impossible to play a "random map" or "skirmish" game. Maps are
> finite in number and playing against the computer AI is too strong,
> bordering on the "impossible to beat". 

I'm not a great player by any means, but I find a single AI quite easy
to beat on most maps. When playing alone, I usually set the game for a
few AI opponents and a 'Free-For-All' game type. 'Greed' games are an
interesting variation as well.

> On the other hand, in EE, and
> most notably AoK, you can set up a virtually infinite number of widely
> different games in random-generated maps that range from islands,
> highlands, to the jungle (in AoK: the Conquerors expansion).
> 

No random maps in SC, unfortunately.

> 3) Scenarios. I don't think SC has a scenario editor, but even if it
> has, it is definitely nowhere good as that of Empire Earth. 

SC does have one, and it's damn good. I haven't played EE, so I can't
compare them. I've designed some fun and interesting maps of my own, and
there are many on the web (including RPG types).

> Whether
> you really need a scenario editor depends on much the same things as
> whether you need a skirmish mode.
> 
> 4) Micro- and macro-management. AoK, and most notably EE, have greatly
> improved on a number of issues which caused an enjoyable (for me)
> shift in focus from micro- to macro-management. The list of good ideas
> found in those games is simply too long to be discussed in detail, and
> there is definitely a great deal of those ideas that I really miss
> when I play SC (although, once again, SC was itself quite ahead of its
> times in this respect and better, for example, than Age of Empires
> (1st), which I think came after SC or more or less at the same time).
> 

No question the interface is the weakest point of SC. I would kill for
an updated version of SC with a modern interface, the original races,
and a new race. I'd buy that for sure.

> 5) Richer techno trees. I'm not one who thinks that a game should be
> as complicated as possible. Anyway, the richer technological trees of
> AoK and most notably, once again, EE, actually open new strategic
> dimensions. EE is especially interesting in this respect in the sense
> that a collection of "researches" (actually termed "training" of
> units) are, more or less, mutually exclusive. So you get to choose
> whether you want, for example, your infantry to be stronger in attack,
> or move faster, or stronger in defense, etc.; you cannot have it all.
> Choosing the right upgrades depending on the actual situation, or
> balancing upgrades for different kind of units, poses very interesting
> strategical problems.
> 

What I really want in this regard is persistent technology in a campaign
mode similar to Warlords Battlecry 2. That campaign mode is the prime
reason for WLBC 2 being my 2nd favorite RTS.

> Of course, SC has also many strenghts on its part, and has in fact
> proven to be one of the games that better stood the test of time. The
> balancing between widely different races is simply incredible. 

Amen. Amazing job by Blizzard there. The greatest strength of the game.
One I mention every time I get involved in a TA versus SC discussion.

--

Too many sticks, not enough carrots.

"No one ever says Italy" - Hank Scorpio

Name: Santa's Little Helper
Occupation: Butt Doctor
Income: What I finds, I keeps.