What makes starcraft great

Trying to build your base and protect it while building an army for war is a fun challenge. The storyline is great. Really sets the mood that all three species are at each other's throats in one way or another. It's set up so that the player has to play an individual campaign of each species. With each species getting their own storyline that eventually brings everything full circle.

If there's one thing I have to give this game above all else. It's a really difficult game in the later levels of each campaign. In my opinion it still holds up today 8 years after it's creation. Great game. Good graphics. Intriguing storyline. A fun challenge. This game has a little bit for everybody if you're into RTS games. It follows the time tested RTS pattern: harvest resources with "villagers," upgrade your production and military units with a "blacksmith" structure, build up an army and go trounce all opposition.

That's RTS in a nutshell. Starcraft was above all an outstanding single player experience. The storyline was excellent, with fantastic cut-scenes and top quality acting.

It placed the gamer right in the thick of the plot, starting with peripheral missions and leading to a crucial role in the struggle at hand. Each race was unique, with completely different units and play styles. Herein was perhaps Starcraft's greatest strength. So many RTS games have either identical units or a very close facsimile thereof.

Although fun, Starcraft did not necessarily bring anything new to the table. The terrain was rendered in 2D, the resource system identical to Warcraft and Age of Empires, and otherwise felt in many ways similar to other contemporary RTS games.

I also didn't feel that the game was as good of a multiplayer experience, lessening it's replayablity. There were a limited number of strategies and tactics to employ with the units available. Although I got my money's worth out of the title, I did not feel it was groundbreaking, nor did it deserve the popularity it enjoyed.

There are many superior RTS games, but one certainly would not guess that judging from it's sales. It's appeal is wide and any RTS fan, or beginner, will be pleased. One of the best Rts ever, and one of the best game ever made, everything in this game is almost perfect, the story, the characters, the playability, the soundtrack, the graphics, the videos, everything.

Starcraft have three races: Terran humans , Zerg a primitive race of alien and Protoss an evaluated alien race , they fighting each other to take control of the entire universe. Personally i like all "Blizzard" games, but this one its special. Z 24 April StarCraft I personally think is okay, it's not really anything special.

I mean, the game is fun, it's pretty challenging. However unlike SupCom, the three main factions are all neat and varied and require different play styles to use them properly. But the units are sometimes unresponsive. Whenever a unit bumps into another unit, they just storm off in different directions. The graphics are good for the time, but the cutscenes are just messy. In the opening cutscene, I couldn't tell what was even happening.

Overall, StarCraft isn't as good as people say it is. I think the game is okay, but I couldn't get into it as much as so many other people have. Two of the greatest titles ever were released- StarCraft and Half-Life. I never cared for WarCraft, I found it's lack of an original premise and compelling story to be a major weakness.

StarCraft did everything a game should. It's graphics were beautiful, the vibrant artwork lends amazing detail to the futuristic battlefield even today. The soundtrack fits the atmosphere well, when traversing the cold vacuum of space it only lends to the atmosphere when you here the creepy tunes of starcraft. Then the gameplay itself. Each race is unique, and works in different ways, but is perfectly balanced.

The difficulty is just right- not too easy, not too tough. Then there is the story. WarCraft didn't have a very compelling story; nor did Diablo or many other Blizzard games.

StarCraft has quality writing that makes the campaign even more amazing. Each race has it's rich history, and you can't help but take interest in at least some of the things they engage in. The game also has multiplayer, and StarCraft also excels here.

Multiplayer is just plain FUN. If you get bored of massing and destroying your friends in a 1on1 or crashing the computers party in a 2 on 2 compstomp, then all you need is to select 'Use Map Settings'.

The variety here is amazing. There's thousands of maps shipped with the game that can be used in multiplayer and in your own skirmishes. The editor has all you need to make a brand new campaign or new game modes for online, the story is amazing, the graphics are amazing, the whole entire package is worth your time; and as long as Battle.

Lots of bad sci film films out there. One of the finest computer games of all time SnacksForAll 9 July Unlike Warcraft, there is an actual plotline here, and it is wonderfully engaging -- you'll find yourself speeding through levels just to see the next story development -- and the action, interface, units and overall game are like nothing I've ever seen before, and make STARCRAFT superior to anything else in the field.

My only complaints, however, are some absurdly difficult levels that can make the gaming process tedious and frustrating -- but don't let that stop you, all the other wonderful qualities more than redeem this and you probably shouldn't take it from me -- as much as I love PC games, I've never been particularly good at them.

Go out and buy it. And pat yourself on the back for making such a wise decision. Have fun. It's a great game and the story and voice acting added to the feeling you we're watching an epic alien movie! Knersuz 26 October Starcraft has a much bigger emphasis on micro-management as most units have some kind of special ability. Also armies are generally smaller with more emphasis on balance and researched abilities than size and power.

I am a sucker for a good storyline and here Starcraft delivers wholeheartedly, the manual reads like the first chapter of a bestselling science-fiction novel and throughout the single player there a number of interesting plot twists, I'm a bit bemused that nobody ever bothered to make a Starcraft movie! Also the developers can be commended for creating 3 opposing races with different strengths and weaknesses, but with no race that are clearly superior. This has certainly been attempted before unsuccessfully in other games but the Starcraft developers got it more or less right.

The area Starcraft didn't won me completely over was in the actual gameplay, your army are limited by available resources and most individual units are rather fragile and can quickly be destroyed by enemy fire, I spend lots of time fixing and replacing my battered army rather than planning battles! I also felt that the whole idea of researching abilities really slows the game down and because the AI opponent always start with a big head start you spend a lot of time waiting for research to be done to be able to match you AI opponent.

Overall, this is certainly an above average game and it's legacy and success speaks for itself. This game is a riot! With a little practice, you can have hours and hours of fun. Build up an army and save the universe. Even if you've never tried a strategy-type game, this one is definitely worth your effort. You can play the provided missions, go one-on-one vs the computer or go online and play with friends or strangers.

It's difficult to give this game a good note and it's difficult to give it a bad note. Because Starcraft is one of those games you forget, then re-discover only to forget and then find again, ceaselessly. Problem with that is that every single time, you're reminded what made you get away from it. Whether it was its childish multiplayer community, the lack of interest put in the Single Player campaign most people I know skipped straight to protoss or Zerg in SC or just the fact it becomes mind-numbingly repetitive You can never like Starcraft for too long.

Unless you play it for a living, of course. Real-time strategy games by then up and coming Blizzard were all seen as grandiose. The initial two games having been inspired by the engine used by Dune Warcraft 1 and 2 , they were looking for something to revolutionize.

So how about replacing squares with circles? It seems like a simplistic thing to do but it's the kind of revolution that got SC going. The graphics for this game were impressive for Forget about colours and midi-music.

How about bit and industrial techno? Someone with two panthers and a tiger strong and heavy tanks if you are not familiar with it can still lose from me with a bunch of infantry and several anti-tank guns. I get a kick out of that. I never play strategies in Company of Heroes, well only for the openings, and did have more wins as losses but note that I was never very high ranked.

Maybe I misunderstood. Building a bunch of units and keeping in check what they counter is fine. But the idea of having to build a particular unit because my opponent makes a particular unit seems like very boring.

But that's just my personal opinion. Anyway, that's not why I'm wondering why this game is so high rated. Different games appeal to different people.

But how can a game that does nothing new get more as a 9? That baffles me, since so many games are punished for not being refreshing or revolutionary. Well I wasn't really comparing, but since I have played mainly Age of Empires games and on the other side Company of Heroes, I will likely compare without actually comparing I couldn't remember the word to describe this. Total Annihilation was a great game, though I've only played the demo.

It looked great, was different, the combat was great. Supreme Commander tried at least to get bigger, while Starcraft 2 seems like it is just the same game with a few new gimmicks and enhanced graphics. I'm not really questioning why Starcraft 2 is enjoyable, but I'm questioning why it is rated so high when it does nothing really new. It seems to me it just:. I watched to video reviews and appearently they made some great variation in missions.

I think that surely deserve some points. On the other hand, alpha, you make it very clear to me, that Starcraft 2 could not really add anything new or revolutionary. On the other hand, I haven't read of new game modes or co-op missions or stuff like that things that do not change the gameplay but do add to the game. That's probably because StarCraft II is a very well polished game. Everything about it is fluent, smooth and logical. There are no obvious glitches, performance issues or gameplay annoyances.

It just feels natural? Now that's a very very well designed game. That's why it got 9. So my suggestion: play the game. That way you'll have a definite experience to compare against other titles.

It's all meant to push the player into a frenzy of break-neck decisions that, to me, puts it into a kind of "arcade" category. Yes, there can be complex tactics and strategies, but those usually only come to play in the long game where players are evenly matched. In reality, most matches only last maybe minutes and one side gets completely annihilated very quickly by the other side because the winning side executes the right build order with fewer mistakes.

Resources and maps are also very very symmetrical and are specifically designed for tournament play. HuskyStarcraft game casts aren't good examples for what actually happens in most games between most players because these professional casters only cast the very best match-ups with evenly-matched top tier players. Starcraft is all about action and a few simple mistakes makes you very very dead.

In Starcraft's chosen type of gameplay, you won't find a much better example. Whether all of this is good or bad depends on what kind of player you are and what you want from a strategy game. I suggest those who want to play a Starcraft -style game to go ahead and go play Starcraft.

I generally feel very cheated if an Age of Kings or 0 A. That's not to say we couldn't learn any lessons from Starcraft's game design and gameplay. The balance is excellent, even with unique races, so there are lessons to be gleaned there. All I know is it was overheating my computer more than any other game has since, so I had to stop playing it after a few days.

It's got a good story, very unique civs, nice graphics, and is easily mod-able. It has a lot going for it. Yeah, for example Company of Heroes. I love the game, great campaign, great game design, great gameplay. The factions are poorly designed in my opinion, and there are balance issues.

One thing I hated yes hated, because it can be frustating in competive play , is how one faction could buy experience while others needed to gain it. It wouldn't be that bad but the elite units are super humans, making it very hard to beat this faction late game.

Fun fact: I always first check out if there are plenty of mods for a game before I buy it. One of the reasons I bought Battlefield 2 and Company of Heroes was this.

It's very game-like, not immersive like you would want a historical game to be. I'm not sure what you can compare it to, maybe something like ping-pong.

And yeah I've watched Koreans play this, and I got the same impression while I haven't played it. In Company of Heroes I need to be fast, but I can't imagine myself playing Starcraft 2 with pro-gamers. I guess though you can choose to play with less serious players to make it not too much like what you described. It does not appeal to me, but I can understand it appeals to others.

I guess I can understand it's popularity, but not it's critical rating. And for 0 A. I would personally like it to be neither like Starcraft or Company of Heroes. But instead take inspiration, and features from it what could work for 0 A. Like you said Mythos:. I imagine 0 A. And compared to Age of Kings it becomes much more immersive and authentic; with authentic real-like maps but fun maps if you like and historical accurate factions and unique factions. I personally prefer it more like; "you win how you use units" instead of "you win what you build".

I guess a healthy middleground is the best. And I feel like some fields could be explored more, like diplomacy something that you don't want in Starcraft. And with a team lock option this should not be a issue. It's going to be really interesting to see what kind of non-total conversion mods become popular when 0 A. Competitive balance? For Battlefield 2, the most popular mod was a realistic mod.

For Company of Heroes it is a mod with a added faction. Guess what the most popular mod on Moddb right now is Though I guess it's much more than that. The special bailie set are for me the best and graphics animation in Sc2 like Zealots cut off terrant body parts.

The abilities like charges of zealots, The ghost abilities sniper ability, I like special ops units. May we can have assassins and spy and have other units like engineers they have abilities to build siege bolt shooters in the battlefield.

The game have very good art. I mean visual effects. The deaths are adequately with the attack. Example if you are burned by unit the death animations is fire and units fall burned. Transport units aren't based in units number , are based in size of the units. Even Carriers can imitates with throw boxes or barrels with bees inside, that unconventional war. Is boring if you play many matches, repetitive that why is good propose alternative gameplay, many ways to win a match.

Even Diplomacy, the Diplomacy is the weakness of this game. No I don't mind the off-topic since this is the off-topic section anyway. And I went off-topic myself too. You give some nice points what makes Starcraft 2 enjoyable. Though I can't figure out why it is rated so high.

Even the first game was not rated a 9. Yet this one is pretty much the same not to say the improvements aren't good , and is rated very high. Although real-time strategy games like StarCraft and Age of Empires have a venerable legacy in PC gaming history, the genre has been somewhat unsupported by big-budget developers in recent years save for the upcoming Age of Empires 4 , which might change things.

Most fans of the genre will tell you that it's not quite the same as it was during the heyday of the '90s. However, that's just all the more reason why more people should play competitive strategy games in this day and age.

If StarCraft II continues to do well and sparks renewed interest in the genre, it might catch the attention of developers willing to fork over the cash to try and capitalize on that interest. Those without much background in the world of PC gaming often find themselves fretting about what games they can and cannot play on their current hardware.

This is understandable because, for those without gaming PCs, playing a video game isn't quite so simple as inserting a disk into a console. Thankfully, StarCraft II 's system requirements are quite light, meaning that pretty much anybody will be able to install and enjoy the game. These technical considerations, combined with StarCraft II 's price tag of zero dollars have considerably lowered the bar of entry to the game, making it far more accessible for even those without any experience with strategy games.

StarCraft II is an intensely competitive game, as are its counterparts in the world of RTS, and for fairly obvious reasons. Most of the time, this is a one-versus-one affair; there's nobody to help the player if they make mistakes, meaning they only have themselves to blame for winning and losing.

The game is extremely complex, with upgrades, units, workers, and soldiers all needing to be managed simultaneously. Thankfully, there's more excellent tutorial material out there for players new to the game than ever. A simple YouTube search will bring up a trove of information available for each race and playstyle, meaning that despite the intimidating exterior , it's actually easier to learn StarCraft now than it ever has been. Similar to its predecessor, StarCraft II features three separate campaigns, each focusing on one of the three main races populating the game's setting: the Terrans, Protoss, and Zerg.

These campaigns are a great way to learn the very basics of how to play, but they're also a good time in themselves. There's a ton of variety to the mission structure in StarCraft II 's singleplayer modes: some require careful management of special resources, others require defending or escorting a certain objective, while a few task the player with simply annihilating an enemy presence.

Although there are complaints to be had about the story, the gameplay itself is as entertaining as ever. While one-versus-one ranked matches make up the core of the multiplayer experience in StarCraft II , there is a range of other modes to be enjoyed for players looking for some variety.