🚀 go-pugleaf

"Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:z9Hjb.295610$mp.233617@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
played
> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
>
>

Yeah

Perkins

Total Annihilation.

lupi


"Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:z9Hjb.295610$mp.233617@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
played
> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
>
>

"Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:z9Hjb.295610$mp.233617@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it

um where have you been for the past 6 years?

C&C Generals is a nice change of pace and well done.

Spork wrote:

> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent played
> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
> 
> 

Yeah, TA beat it years ago.

There is no RTS like Sudden Strike RTS (multiplayer only, singleplayer is
shit) ;-)

"Destroy" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:XlIjb.51772$832.33191@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> C&C Generals is a nice change of pace and well done.
>
> Spork wrote:
>
> > is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and
it
> > was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
played
> > a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
> >
> >
>

> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
played
> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.

Hm. I still consider Ground Control to be the best RTS out there, but the
choice between that, TA and SC is a matter of taste. I think GC2 is the one
RTS I've actually ever looked forward to.

// Hermann

"Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in
news:z9Hjb.295610$mp.233617@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net: 

> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and
> it was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i
> havent played a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats
> out there. 
> 
> 

Not trying to be a troll, but after seeing some of the responses to this 
post it makes we wonder,
 what features of StarCraft would make it better than some of the more 
recent RTS games such as AOE/AOK or RON or Empire Earth. What about 
HomeWorld2 ?

data64

 Not trying to be a troll, but after seeing some of the responses to this
> post it makes we wonder,
>  what features of StarCraft would make it better than some of the more
> recent RTS games such as AOE/AOK or RON or Empire Earth. What about
> HomeWorld2 ?
>
> data64

actually I dont know why I like it so much. It could be because it was my
first rts and the one me and friends played so much or maybe I just like the
units in the game better?  I tried the age of empires games and it just
wasnt my thing. I plan to try RoN and TA very soon.  I should finish up the
exp for warcraft 3 this weekend.  The single player missions are fun but I
just couldnt get into war3 multi either.  I hear a lot of people complaining
about race imbalance. the few games i did play i just got the crap beat out
of me. maybe the game deserves another try online?

Phil-on-a-hill wrote:
> Yeah, TA beat it years ago.

TA aborted SC's claim to being the best RTS ever before it was born.:)

Of course, I should probably mention Warlords Battlecry II and Kohan at 
this point.;)

Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;

data64 wrote:
> 
> "Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in
> news:z9Hjb.295610$mp.233617@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
> 
> > is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and
> > it was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i
> > havent played a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats
> > out there.
> >
> >
> 
> Not trying to be a troll, but after seeing some of the responses to this
> post it makes we wonder,
>  what features of StarCraft would make it better than some of the more
> recent RTS games such as AOE/AOK or RON or Empire Earth. What about
> HomeWorld2 ?
> 
> data64

Really, the only thing that sets SC apart from the other RTS games I
have tried is the great difference in how the three races play, yet are
still well-balanced.

This one thing is still enough to keep SC as my favorite RTS game,
although I am also a big fan of WLBC 2.

--

Too many sticks, not enough carrots.

"No one ever says Italy" - Hank Scorpio

"Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<Gk%jb.798995$YN5.796917@sccrnsc01>...

I'm with you on this one.   I tagged StarCraft as the best game ever
for me.  I know there are plenty of other really good games out there
and have actually played many of them.  Even like W3, though done
well,  I just couldn't seem to get sucked into it like SC.  I own 2
copies of W3 with the expansions and yet my kids always go back and
play good ole StarCraft (Broodwar).  I've often tried to figure out
what it is that we like so much about it.  The only thing I can come
up with is that the game really is done very well.  The sounds, the
voices, the music, the colors, the design... all of it.   One nice
package.

Are you a "planner" or "strategic" type player?  Maybe that is it?   

Couple dozen guys here at work use to play SC every Friday night. 
Most of them have drizzled off and don't play anymore and are off to
some of the newer games already mentioned.  But if you look at the few
die hard SC players, the ones still playing SC, they all seem to have
one thing in common.  They all like slow, 1 or 2 hour games with
strategic planning and slow well planned attacks and good defense
plans.  Most of the guys who have moved on were the "rush'rs" of the
games.  They all liked the fast and furious 15 minute games.

(BTW, I too have gotten my backend handed to me on every stink'n game
of W3 I have ever played.  Every last one.  I just can't get the game
to allow me to slow build and plan.  Probably why I just can't seem to
get into it?   Blizzard.. I wish you would put in an option for us
analytical slow thinkers....   StarCraft could be played both ways. 
Fast or slow.)

Chiz  
  


> Not trying to be a troll, but after seeing some of the responses to this
> > post it makes we wonder,
> >  what features of StarCraft would make it better than some of the more
> > recent RTS games such as AOE/AOK or RON or Empire Earth. What about
> > HomeWorld2 ?
> >
> > data64
> 
> actually I dont know why I like it so much. It could be because it was my
> first rts and the one me and friends played so much or maybe I just like the
> units in the game better?  I tried the age of empires games and it just
> wasnt my thing. I plan to try RoN and TA very soon.  I should finish up the
> exp for warcraft 3 this weekend.  The single player missions are fun but I
> just couldnt get into war3 multi either.  I hear a lot of people complaining
> about race imbalance. the few games i did play i just got the crap beat out
> of me. maybe the game deserves another try online?

Chizel wrote:
> 
> "Spork" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<Gk%jb.798995$YN5.796917@sccrnsc01>...
> 
> I'm with you on this one.   I tagged StarCraft as the best game ever
> for me.  I know there are plenty of other really good games out there
> and have actually played many of them.  Even like W3, though done
> well,  I just couldn't seem to get sucked into it like SC.  I own 2
> copies of W3 with the expansions and yet my kids always go back and
> play good ole StarCraft (Broodwar).  I've often tried to figure out
> what it is that we like so much about it.  The only thing I can come
> up with is that the game really is done very well.  The sounds, the
> voices, the music, the colors, the design... all of it.   One nice
> package.
> 

Absolutely. I've been gaming on various computer systems since 1979, and
I consider SC to be one of the two best computer games which I have
played. 

The other? Lemmings.

--

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.

"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.

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". 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).

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. 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).

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.

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. Yet
*my* personal favorite is, as for now, Empire Earth (followed by AoK
and then SC). (And although I only mentioned those three, I've played
many other RTSs, so a third position is a good one!).

MC

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.

> 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.

AoK is waaaay better than AOE. Judging the AOE series based on the
first episode is very unjust. AoK and its expansions are the top notch
version of what AoE was just hinting to. (And EE is even better from a
graphical standpoint... zoomable 3D featuring multiple zoom types
too...)

> > 2) Skirmish.  
> 
> 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.

Thanks for that info. I will try again. I hade given up based on both
my first experiences and similar opinions found on the Web.

> > 3) Scenarios. I don't think SC has a scenario editor... 
> 
> 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).

I stand corrected again. Now that you tell me, I remember SC's
scenario editor (a standalone application, right?), and I have tried
it a few times. Still the EE scenario editor is the best around, in my
own view.

> > 4) Micro- and macro-management. 
> 
> 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.

Me too...! The coming of SC2 would of course be a 1st class event in
the RTS Universe. (Too bad they kept their focus on WC...)

> > 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.
> 

And another great point, on a lower profile, is SC's speed. It's
amazing when you load a saved game and the map pops up in seconds.
Many of the games I have mentioned (especially EE) have progress bar
almost everywhere....

MC

moongateclimber wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> AoK is waaaay better than AOE. Judging the AOE series based on the
> first episode is very unjust. AoK and its expansions are the top notch
> version of what AoE was just hinting to. (And EE is even better from a
> graphical standpoint... zoomable 3D featuring multiple zoom types
> too...)
> 

Indeed. Actually, I just tried the EE demo yesterday. It does look
great.

How do the more modern era modes perform? I would love to find a good
WW2 era RTS with authentic units.


> > > 2) Skirmish.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Thanks for that info. I will try again. I hade given up based on both
> my first experiences and similar opinions found on the Web.
> 

The great thing about Free-For-All mode is that the AI opponents don't
work together. It's every race for itself. It makes for some truly wild
games. You can lead one enemy force over to another enemy's base and
watch the carnage. Fun.

> > > 3) Scenarios. I don't think SC has a scenario editor...
> >
> > 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).
> 
> I stand corrected again. Now that you tell me, I remember SC's
> scenario editor (a standalone application, right?), and I have tried
> it a few times. Still the EE scenario editor is the best around, in my
> own view.
> 
> > > 4) Micro- and macro-management.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Me too...! The coming of SC2 would of course be a 1st class event in
> the RTS Universe. (Too bad they kept their focus on WC...)
> 

I played the WC3 demo, and was unimpressed. For the same genre (swords &
sorcery) I much prefer WLBC 2. Lots of distinct races, persistent heroes
(which can also be used and upgraded in skirmish games), and a good
campaign mode)

--

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.

> Indeed. Actually, I just tried the EE demo yesterday. It does look
> great.
> How do the more modern era modes perform? I would love to find a good
> WW2 era RTS with authentic units.

I've had EE for about 1 year now, and I must admit I haven't been
playing modern epochs that much insofar... I like to be a slow
consumer. Anyway, the few games I tried spanning XVIII century to WW2
were very interesting. The game is faithful to reality in that modern
war has completely different dynamics wrt to prehistoric to middle
ages. Planes become pivotal, and they are controlled in a different
way wrt to other units (they have to be kept in motion, so you specify
routes rather than positions, and they have to get back to the airport
periodically etc). In WWI I witnessed some really spectacular sky
fights with biplanes doing pirouettes to get behind their opponent and
machine-gun them.

> The great thing about Free-For-All mode is that the AI opponents don't
> work together. It's every race for itself. It makes for some truly wild
> games. You can lead one enemy force over to another enemy's base and
> watch the carnage. Fun.

Right now I am in a EE-RedAlert2 mania. When I get over it, I think
I'll get back to SC:BW to try that. Thanks again.

MC

"Spork" <no@no.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Gk%jb.798995$YN5.796917@sccrnsc01...
>

What some people may forget is that ....

The first time you play "That Game" it's always the first time.

When the second is realeased, or the second time you play a good RTS it's
not tha first time and the Wow cannot be the same. Unfortunately this is a
psycological truth!

The second releas, or the second rts is "only the second time" and the game
still can be much better comapared to the first, but still it's not enough.

Morgan O.

On Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:59:13 PM UTC-6, Spork wrote:
> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent played
> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.

If you haven't tried Dark Reign, you don't know what real RTS is. :)

On 14.7.2012. 1:37, willard.hagen@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:59:13 PM UTC-6, Spork wrote:
>> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3 and it
>> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent played
>> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
>
> If you haven't tried Dark Reign, you don't know what real RTS is. :)

+1! :)

Il 14/07/2012 21:31, Iguana ha scritto:
> On 14.7.2012. 1:37, willard.hagen@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:59:13 PM UTC-6, Spork wrote:
>>> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3
>>> and it
>>> was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
>>> played
>>> a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
>>
>> If you haven't tried Dark Reign, you don't know what real RTS is. :)
>
> +1! :)

DR the 15 years ago game? :D

On 15.7.2012. 9:39, DeSangre wrote:
> Il 14/07/2012 21:31, Iguana ha scritto:
>> On 14.7.2012. 1:37, willard.hagen@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:59:13 PM UTC-6, Spork wrote:
>>>> is starcraft still the best rts game out there? i tried warcraft 3
>>>> and it was alright but it didnt have the same feeling as starcraft. i havent
>>>> played a good rts in a year or so i was just wondering whats out there.
>>>
>>> If you haven't tried Dark Reign, you don't know what real RTS is. :)
>>
>> +1! :)
>
> DR the 15 years ago game? :D

Yup. :) Well, Starcraft is "only" 14 years old, and the original post 
appears to be made on Thursday, October 16, 2003 so... it all fits just 
fine. ;))