Video Game History Month: Starcraft
GameSpot gives you a look at the history of Starcraft and how it popularized this genre of gaming for years to come.
by Dan Mihoerck on
Did you enjoy this video?Sign In to Upvote
No matter what, StarCraft remain as one of the finest RTS ever created. No matter how much I try to quit StarCraft. I kept play it again after many weeks. Is like calling to me
some how this reminds me of battle for middle earth 2 probably human=human(terran) goblin=zerg dwarf=protoss probably how it goes and orc=sorta zergish uruck-hai=terran protoss mix and yes i know starcraft came well before
I'm not much of a RTS fan and quite frankly I am horrible at them, but with that being said Starcraft is very fun playing with friends online.
@ Frosty192 lol nope. too much grinding involved. Played for the 1st year it launched though... i was however a big wc3 junkie. That was good stuff.
I totally lost track of the release date.. can't believe it's almost here. SC is such a huge legacy of gaming, that for me, a sequel was just so abstract. I mean, how could you touch such a classic game? Not only that, but this can't really be as much of a landmark as the first SC, can it? I guess that with plenty of attention on story, people will see it as a smooth transition from SC 1. It doesn't really seem like 12 years has past. But hey, that's testament to how rock-solid this project has been.
Move over, MW2, Final Fantasy, Halo, Counterstrike, WoW: Starcraft is the best game ever made, and Starcraft 2 will be the best sequel ever made.
100 million $ for developering StarCraft II... That should say us something... I'm sure SCII will beat Halo 3, MW2 and etc by sales. The waiting of 12 years has finished! Can't wait 07.27.10. :-)
@ Frosty192 don't be ignorant. The campaign in wings of liberty is longer and more in-depth than the campaign of wc3 which had 4 races. Just because its focused on one race doesnt mean its less content.
I am sorry but Blizzard has really turned into money hungry d***s since wow. Splitting the campaign into 3 parts and pricing them each at 60 bucks? Really? Blizzard, go **** yourself.
Only on PC and Mac? I am so entrenched in console nowadays that I haven't upgraded my PC since 2004. But if this game is anything like the old StarCraft, I might just come back to PC gaming again, even it is just for this game.
@jacyp Maybe you missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't debating the merits of whether or not SCII has evolved over SCI, I was only pointing out that you're definition of a sequel was flawed. And, considering how ridiculously popular the original StarCraft became, I think Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to take a (more or less) "Don't fix what ain't broke" approach to this game. And all of the points you've made are skipping over one essential part of RTS games. Making a game simple doesn't make a game bad, it makes it user friendly, and also makes the game more about finding strategies and using what you have rather than manipulating a complex system to achieve results. Now I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they both breed different kinds of play styles (especially in multiplayer) in a complex RTS (like say, the first Supreme Commander) understanding how the game works and exploiting its complexities to their best potential is what's important. In a more simple RTS (like the first StarCraft) developing strategies and plans to gain an advantage with the more simplistic system. Of the two, the latter tends to create a more intense/competitive multiplayer, and as far as I can tell that's what Blizzard is going for with SCII. Of course, the game hasn't been released yet, so all of our predictions mean nothing until then.
@WillyChong: The formula I've talked about is not what you described, that is, indeed, the basic formula of any RTS. It's the fact that all shots/attacks automatically hit and do damage. Most RTS today have some kind of evasion system, either by the simple movement of the units, or by an accuracy stat for each unit, wich all changes with the position of the unit. Higher grounds, cover etc etc. As handelo rightly said, we can still hope for things like that to be on final version of the game, but all the vids of matches and gameplays I saw didn't support that hope. Cheers.
@handelo: I've read all you said, and you do have a point in my opinion. But you came at a equivocal perspective. I'm not flaming anything and I do have my hopes, just like you and anybody else does. What I'm trying to do is to fight the opposite of flaming: the "hyping" (I don't even know if it is a word, lol). All my comments are based on the info we have so far, and what I've talked with one beta tester that I know. But appart from that, the majority here doesn't have a clue how the game will come either, and are worshiping the game already, like it is a mind-blowing game. So far, all the things that were published, text and images, all give me reason to believe what I've said. And none gives motive for such hype that I've seen so far. I'm against this fanatic behavior, and I'm just trying to make people think about what they're saying. Cheers.
i would say the same thing i said everytime i see such an awesome game: Why, oh why, my dear lord, i can't play it on my Wii?!?
jacyp: Do you actually played it? The beta version is a lot different than the first man, the graphics, is a whole lot user friendly than any 2009 or later RTS games. The game have rotatable camera, I'm surprise that you said it does not have...... It abandon the formula? No, none of the games you show abandon the formula, it still retain you hit me hp drop formula, just that it may add morale, suppression or squad system, or it hit at a faster rate. But units still have a health bar, and it hardly change. This formula is always the basis of most RTS games we've seen today. This formula works as you will prefer not see your unit die immediatly and felt a waste of recources to deploy that unit just to be cut down in seconds or takes a long time to kill an opponent, and felt like its gonna take forever to kill a unit. You should think about a wider perspective, most of my friends never heard of the games you mentioned, except for some of my gamespot followers pal. But when you said Starcraft & Warcraft III, most of the boys said, "hey, I've play that. its great! Lets play again!"
Part 2: 2. You've obviously played the first game at least. I suggest you go and play it again. Remember what StarCraft was all about? Big armies. HUGE armies. I'm not talking about dozens of units, I'm talking about hundreds, and SC2 seems to expand on this. So naturally, if the graphics were resource-hoggers, almost nobody could play the game properly. As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, I'm extremely inclined to ask: how do you KNOW? How do you know there won't be adverse effects on injured units? How do you know there won't be new ways to deal with different terrains? I'm not saying you're wrong - I don't know myself. But I'm not saying you're right either. All I'm saying is - buy the game, play it, finish the single-player campaign, play some multi-player, and THEN come back and say what you think about it. It's just not right to flame, or praise for the matter, a game from previews and sneak-peaks.
@jacyp: I'm sorry, I couldn't help but respond to your claims. How you can rate and flame a game so thoroughly without even having played it is beyond me, unless you were a beta-tester (which I doubt since you would've mentioned it earlier). The best we've seen so far is a long gameplay video showing only part of some new features of one of 3 races (the protoss). There are bound to be many new innovations and features we havn't even imagined, let-alone seen. Graphics-wise, yes, SC2 might not be the mind-blowing graphical game we've all imagined it to be, but there are 2 obvious reasons for that: 1. Blizzard always appeal to the masses, and want their games to be available to most anyone, and not just those with extremely high-end machines. Just look at their most successful game - WoW - the graphics are sh*t in today's standards, but it's been, and still is, the most enjoyable and played MMORPG out there.
@carp93: 3rd. This is all just ridiculous, and what makes it so is the fact that they definitly had time to change all these things and make it a unique game once again. Come on, we are all fans here, but we don't need to blindly approve anything that Blizzard does. Just look at the facts, look at the RTS games we have today and tell where SC2 outclass them, technically. The story I already said the it's the strongest part of this game.
@carp93: 2nd. Company of Heroes, Supremme Commander, the battle mode of the "total war" series, World in Conflict, Warcraft 3(!), Command and Conquer series, are all top games that abbandoned that formula a long time ago. Why SC has to come with that AGAIN? And sticking with the games already mentioned, you can see how much they differ from each other, how different it is their themes and the way you do battle, apply your strategy, deal with terrain. That just show that in RTS you have much more facility to innovate, to apply different ideas, to create something new and unique. Then we all wait 12 years for the most expected game of all times just to play "more of the same"? I still love playing original SC, and I still think it was ground breaking at his time, but just because I love the original one I doesn't have to love a version 2 with the same functionality 12 years later. The first one was advanced for its time, but this one isn't. Today Blizzard could offer us something mind-blowing, and not the same perspective of the game, the same fixed camera (this is ridiculous!), the same limited group selection of units, the same races, same scenarios, same resources (woooo a different crystal, how inovating!), same functionality (I shoot, you take damage...), same marines working a 100% even though a zergling is eating his leg and a zealot is tearing his armor apart.
@carp93: 1st part. Sorry, but that "different engine" of yours appears worse than the engine of Warcraft 3, how do you call that? I call "let's make the same game again with no effort at all and make a huge proffit on the long lasting game fans". We are talking about RTS. You gave an example of a FPS. Those are two separate genres with different characteristics that evolves, once again, in a different manner. RTS evolved a lot more than FPS for the last 12 years. FPS still have the same perspective (cos it's inherent to the genre), the same way to play, there isnt much to change except all those thing you just said: graphic engine and story. Maybe one or two new features like destructible environment, or other ways to interact with the scenario, new weapons, but the genre will always be the same with differents things to do and a little change in how to do it. Crysis and Far Cry, both have basically one appeal: open environment, you do whatever you want, the way you want, where you want, wich wasn't a new concept at all if you remember that GTA 3 was launched way before those, so you can see how long they took to apply a great concept to a FPS. That shows you what I'm talking about: FPS doesn't evolve fast, the engine of a FPS is trickier to tweek and make new stuff. RTS games used to be "I shoot/melee attack you, you take damage, you shoot/melee attack me, I take damage. Whoever goes 0 hp first, dies, the other one lives".
@jacyp Wait, so a different engine with different graphics, a different and new story, and similar gameplay mechanics with some new features is an expansion pack? What I just described could be said of Halo 2, as well as pretty much all other sequels out there. By your logic there hasn't been any true "sequels" in years.
@goodbye77: sorry to disagree with you mate. I'm a HUGE fan of SC, but I am quite disappointed with SC2 so far. The graphics are outdated by at least 4 years and the gameplay is the same from 12 years ago. I mean, come on, TWELVE YEARS HAVE PASSED, we waited for an announce of SC2 in every one of them and when it comes up it's... more of the same with different units and little updated graphs? There is a name for this: expansion. I'll definitly play SC2, mostly for the story sake, cos I love the story of all Blizzard games, but even though I am a fan, let's just face it: look up for the recent RTS games right here on gamespot and tell me honestly that SC2, so far, is better than them. I was expecting more from the company that revolutionized RTS 12 years ago. This is sad.
All those who gave a thumbs down for each approving comments here are ones who havent played SC or are just pure Warhammer fans.
I'm just hoping that all of the great custom games like Marines Special Forces and whatnot are remade quickly.