Slashdot Mirror
The Evolution of StarCraft
Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog links to a piece chock full of gaming history. The StarCraft Legacy site offers up a historical record of the evolution of StarCraft . Written back in 2004, it is still relevant today. A game title that, lo these many years later, not only has an avid cult following but may be the most popular sport in South Korea is something you want to keep in mind. We may even hear word of a sequel this year. The piece runs down the numerous changes the game underwent, from the ugly alpha days through to the upheaval of Brood War (damned Lurkers). Tidbits like this make the article well worth checking out: "The game made a weak first impression at [E3], and it received much criticism. There were many remarks that the game looked too much like 'Orcs in space.' When Blizzard came back from E3 that year, they decided to scrap the idea. Their decision? 'Let's step it up a little more, let's revamp the engine, let's do more than what we're showing. We can't do Orcs in space.' Thus, StarCraft was reborn. The basics of the Warcraft II engine were still used, but more work was being put into the design and programming."
Ah. Interesting ... so the finished product was an improvement over the beta?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It's an interesting article, but I have to question why this wasn't brought up in 2004 when it was written.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
why is it that evolutionists jump on the opportunity to use the word 'evolution' any chance they have, regardless of if it is the best suited word for the sentence in question? is it the way they were intelligently designed? (see, if we started doing it, it would be really really annoying.. for you, at least)
/rant
but seriously... it really makes me laugh sometimes watching history/discovery. 'the evolution of handtools' oh, so now handtools traits and genes are transferred through reproduction? did the torx come by means of mutation?
lol I pondered your comment, made a wild guess as to who would've
posted this bit of "news"
I guessed right..Zonk, I guess better late than never no?
That said though, I did spend a fair portion of my life playing
Starcraft when it was first released, I had for some reason never
really found Warcraft (the RTS) all that appealing, in any of its
3 incarnations.
Starcraft I feel was possibly the most interesting RTS that had been
released during its time, 3 races which played very differently,
fairly good balance for the races, fairly low system requirements,
and more importantly, multi-player was fun!
I wonder if Starcraft 2 will be announced this year..
Starcraft was a blast and continues to be at LAN parties, but I'm looking forward to Supreme Commander. As balanced as Starcraft was, I found Total Annihilation to be a far better game.
As someone who thought they'd not find a good game after C&C or RA2, Starcraft and the expansion pack, Broodwar, was amazing. I finally got around to playing them 2+ years after everyone else but still really enjoyed the content and playability.
SC reminds me of the Dig - the cut scenes were just as epic, and voice acting superb... and the story-line: wow.
I miss you Tassadar!
Matt
Wait.. you only have to break 1000 games to be considered an expert in Starcraft now? Man.. Battle.net has really gone downhill.
1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, any process of growth or development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
... development" certainly applies to software. Software evolves, and the word "evolution" was used long before Darwin. Get over it.
- 1913 Webster
The alternative to "evolution" is "the first draft == the final draft". That may be OK for a divinity who is by definition perfect and omnipotent, creating all biota in their current respective forms within the span of a week, but the rest of us typically have to take a more gradual approach towards getting what we want. Evolution in this context is hardly incompatible with design, which certainly takes place as well, and the term is especially valid in cases where the design is modified (i.e. the design evolves) between its original version and its final version. In broader usage, "[P]rocess of
1. Open "Warcraft II" Project
2. Replace "Dragon" with "BattleCruiser", etc.
3. Fix the "runs as a DOS program" business
4. Save as "Starcraft" Project
5. Many years later, release IP-friendly patch
The StarCraft brand is among the strongest game brands in the world in terms of a PC game and certainly for RTS games. That recognition was forged with a great game, great support (BNET, patches) and most importantly, adaptation as one of, if not the first game to be played on a wide-spread competitive level. StarCraft has enjoyed a vast amount of press based on these accomplishments and almost all have been positive over the years.
:) - I am certainly routing for them.
That being said, Blizzards time to cash in on the StarCraft name has got to be running out. Clamoring about the release of a second installment has been already been plentiful online for years. Blizzard has yet to say anything except that they hope to revisit the StarCraft world in the future. With the announcement, hype, and eventual termination of StarCraft: Ghost, Blizzard has yet to realize that in the way of a official release.
Time could now against Blizzard to cash in on the StarCraft brand. For many of us who played the game, we are fans forever, but for groves of people that know what a zerg rush is, but have never played, these peoples memory of the brand has got to be nearing its end. The StarCraft name means less and less everyday that goes on and new gamers are being introduced to the market who know nothing of its legacy.
Now on the other hand, Blizzard carries a brand as a publisher that is second to none in the PC World so it may not matter at all. They seem to break there own sales records with each game they release, so who knows
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Since this isn't news anyway, everyone should check out TA Spring, Total Annihilition > StarCraft/C&C/etc.
Welcome our overlord... overlords?
We require more overlords.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
In Soviet Brood, the Overlords welcome YOU!
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
Starcraft I feel was possibly the most interesting RTS that had been
released during its time
Ever play Total Annihilation?
StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.
TA: Terrain is modelled as truly 3D, and has great effect on combat. High gound matters; a unit firing off a ridge can be protected by the ridge while pummelling its targets below.
StarCraft: Every shot fired hits its target, even when a moving target changes direction as a slow-moving projectile approaches.
TA: Weapons are semi-realistic; they can miss a fast-moving target or be stopped by terrain.
StarCraft: Air units move just like ground units (with the exception of the Carrier's drones), only ignoring terrain.
TA: Air units move realistically, with planes banking and gunships swerving to avoid enemy fire.
StarCraft: Units either move or they fight. Not both.
TA: Most units are capable of firing while on the move, and frequently do so on their own.
Don't get me wrong; StarCraft was a fun game and brought some great things to the RTS genre. Its three balanced factions brought a new element to strategy gaming that is used heavily today. But that was the only real innovation in SC; the only great step it took from WC2 was that the factions forced players to learn a variety of tactics to be competitive.
Total Annihilation was years ahead of its time with gameplay elements that weren't seen in other games until just recently. It's probably the most underrated RTS out there.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Total Annihilation was a great game too, though I did tend to prefer StarCraft, probably out of familiarity.
StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.
This isn't true. Units on low terrain next to high terrain had (I know) restricted sightlines and units on high terrain next to low terrain (I think) had extended sightlines as compared to the unit on flat terrain. I think it also affected the probability of hitting another unit when firing too (or maybe did less damage), but I'm less sure on that.
StarCraft: Units either move or they fight. Not both.
The Terran Siege Tank can fire while in motion.
if the 1000 games lasted 10 minutes average, that's a full month at a normal job. If one *only* played 2 hours a night, every night, 7 days a week, it would still take them almost 3 months.
After analysis, I have this to say to you: go outside. Read a book, go jogging, do something.
Now that you can play WoW on the Mac and soon on the Wii, PS3, and 360 - will they have StarCraft's successor on the same platforms?
I've given up on WinVista and am only staying with WinXP, so it's a serious question - if it won't run on the MacOS, Linux, BSD, or one of the new game consoles, I won't be buying it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, when a unit on low terrain fired on an elevated unit, sometimes you'll see the bullets "splash" off of the terrain in front of them. I forget if it's a total miss or if it just reduces the damage taken however.
I tried TA for awhile, but from what I remember the AI was dumber than a sack of rocks and there were a ton of units that did almost the same job. It also ran rather slow on my machine (A P100 at the time), so my perceptions might be skewed.
I read the internet for the articles.
In the abstract sense, terrain also provided barriers to vision. A group of marines running by some cliffs might be pummeled by a photon cannon. Barring an airborne unit scouting the cliff for them, they would only be able to see the photon cannon as it fired, reducing the amount of time they could fight back. This had practical implications for siege tanks, whose slow rate of fire took great advantage of this.
However, the more direct counter to your assertion that in Starcraft terrain was little more than pathing relates to height. Units atop said cliff had an innate advantage over below them in that they could completely avoid the damage. Units attack from below a cliff at units atop one only have 70% accuracy.
This miss chance also applies to units hiding behind trees, and was part of the basis for the famous Snipers custom map. Aside from the accuracy example listed above, the exception to this rule comes in the form of siege tanks, reavers, and lurkers. It is possible, though not frequent, for a unit to move out of the range of the attack before the damage occurs. There is also an exception to this. The Protoss' carrier was capable of moving and fighting. It only needed to remain still to deploy its drones.
I'm not attempting to refute your argument that StarCraft, while being the most well-known, popular, and balanced RTS of its era, was not as innovative as TA. I just felt compelled to correct your facts before some religious follower of the Cult of Craft came along and reamed you for it.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Wrong, high terrain and units on it cannot be seen by units on lower terrain, so you could get ambushed walking through a pass or valley. Furthermore, if your marines are on lower terrain and shooting at units on higher terrain, they often miss. Higher terrain is most definitely a tactical advantage and must be taken into consideration.
TA: Air units move realistically, with planes banking and gunships swerving to avoid enemy fire.TA: Weapons are semi-realistic; they can miss a fast-moving target or be stopped by terrain
If you had read the article, you would know that originally Starcraft ships also used to bank and swerve, although I don't know if they ever "dodged" attacks, this is something they evidently decided to remove, along with many other "cool" things like burnable trees. This I believe is just one of the things which made Starcraft 'The' real time strategy tournament game, while games with better graphics missed the boat. As a small example, in Warcraft II, damage is random within a range, so a unit may do 61-75 damage, in Starcraft though, damage is set and there is no random, depending on armor and weapon upgrades, you will always do the same amount of damage. Look at chess, arguably the best strategy game of all time, and yet probably one of the easiest strategy games to learn while also being one of the most difficult games to master. Simple rules means it all comes down to strategy and being able to outwit your opponent, no luck involved so it is all pure skill.
Certainly, from a graphical perspective, there were plenty "better" games than Starcraft at the time, but I suspect that Blizzard purposefully chose not to add certain features to keep the system requirements down, something Blizzard has done with all their games.
Starcraft is still my favorite game and hopefully we will see a new Starcraft strategy game within the next 18 months, we know Blizzard has at least one unannounced project they have been working on for a while now.
I agree with most of the comments of the parent. I also agree with another poster's comment that the AI in TA is "dumber than a sack of rocks." Unfortunately, so is the AI in SC. Having played both, I found I had a preference for TA. One other thing that added to the game, but ultimately caused its first downfall was the ability to add units. When Cavedog was releasing its unit of the month, it was cool. Unfortunately, third-party add-ins resulted in destroying the balance of the game. It seemed to turn into an arms race to see who could create the nastiest Death-Star-On-Treads. Strategy took a back seat to nuking the site from orbit. You could and still can find matches that allowed only the original set or some closed variant, but the damage was done.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Just to clarify, there was a version of StarCraft for the Mac. It came out a little later, but I definitely spent a good deal of time my freshman year of college playing SC versus my PC using buddies.
It will be interesting to see if they end up releasing any new SC game for the consoles eventually (though I suppose them releasing it at all would be a good start), but I personally don't have much interest in playing an RTS without a keyboard.
The TAUIP and TAUCP unit packs are great compliations of balanced 3rd party units. On the rare occasion that we play TA at my LAN parties, TAUIP is the pack of choice.
I do recall back in 2000 there being a stupid amount of overpowered units...I especially remember one that had an insane ground speed that could be used to simply bypass base defenses and go straight for a commander. You had to literally wall in your main base to defend against them.
Of course, no game that can be modded is immune to such things. Two examples:
The grappling hook on Quake. If you didn't know how to use it and no one would tell you, you were at a distinct disdvantage.
The various Counter-Strike mods that give permanent abilities for kills. Take the WarCraft 3 mod, for example...specifically when experience is retained. Players who dominate a server and play regularly have abilities that can't be matched by new joins, completely unbalancing play.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
>We require more overlords.
No, no, no...
It's "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS".
Maybe you're confusing it with "WE REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS" or "WE REQUIRE MORE MINERALS" ?
TA was a niche geek game. It wasn't that great gameplay wise, it was ahead of it's time graphics wise. The strategies degenerated into swarming which mad it predictable and boring. No mater who you swarmed with it's the same strategy. Select all - attack. Little nauance, balanced only because the majority of the early and mid games units are the same. Also games lasted 1+ hours and defence was king encouraging all of the tactics RTS noobs like.
Like C&C you tended to optimize by swarming with mid level units (med tanks for C&C, for TA lotsa mid level bots, at least in all the games I ever witnessed.) You really couldn't attack early due to the comander. By the time you can take the cammander out boths sides have sizable defences. It was fun for a bit but eventually we got bored.
Likely the lack of publishers push was more responsible for it's lower sales though. Since C&C was broing int he exact same ways and sold well.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
yes, I know, my son used to play StarCraft on his old iMac, but I was wondering about the new StarCraft successor on the Intel Mac Mini for example.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
TA was alright, yes. It had a few interesting concepts, but Starcraft had its own and pulled the whole thing off much better.
In Starcraft, terrain gives a defensive bonus to units on high ground compared to those on low ground - in general, units get a 30% defence against attacks. Likewise, units in "cover" get the same defensive bonus.
While the TA system is better in this regard, it's almost moot since LOS is generally required to attack targets anyway. See above - terrain will cause attacks to miss. In all other cases, attacks are considered to hit because they are bound to do so (e.g. volley, instant-hit, etc.) or are seekers (e.g. missles.) I have a small correction to your statement: for TA, most weapons *WILL NOT* hit a fast moving target. As you know, TA was written in a time where developers haven't yet implemented a concept known as leading a target for Real-Time Strategy games (a.k.a. C&C syndrome.)
Fixing this would probably change the gameplay of TA significantly. It would make the Zippers and air units much weaker as they would be shot down much more quickly.
Whichever method is better is a matter of personal taste, as long as any associated implementation quirks get ironed out.
Slow newsday maybe, but this is still relevant. StarCraft is alive and kicking, and is still one of the best games ever made. The least Blizzard could do if it really doesn't want to make StarCraft II is to make a 3D update, or at least give its blessings to StarCraft Revolutions. Its a win-win situation for everyone.
That's why WWII was so interesting, Axis was armed with tanks and planes, the Western Allies made use of its army of Mech Warriors and the Soviet army was built on a strong front line of Bionic Brain Slime.
I remember that in the second battle of el-Alamein, Irwin Rommel researched "Purity of the Aryans" in his Totenkopf tower, giving all his infantry units an extra point of amour and was keeping the Allies busy with constant strikes with his three wheeled motor bikes (called "Bavarian Thigh Slappers") and of course with Charlimagne (complete with rocket launchers) who Rommel summoned at the Ahnenerbe Alter.
Bernard Montgommary was going the the "Three Pub" build strategy and had an initial weakness in his defense, but was able to recover using his "Big Ben" laser towers for base defense, summoned the Black Cyborg Prince with his Alter of Albion and focused on building his Australian mole mechs in his Woolloomoloo University. After he researched "Wombat's Burrow" his mole mechs were able to dig under Rommel's Swastikas and destroy his Concentration camp, forcing Rommel to retreat to Tunisia.
The Great NPC Winston Churchill was known to have said of the victory: "This is not the beginning of the end, but TOTAL PWNAGE ke ke ke ke ke!!!!!!!!!!!111111oneone".
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
ERROR: OVERLORD OVERLOAD
I've played a lot of RTS's before and after Starcraft, but I keep coming back to it for some reason. It's the logical nature of it, the balancing, the rock-paper-scissors (but about 15 layers deep) aspect of it. It seems to capture the logic of an orderly game like chess (while certainly less realistic than a game like COH)
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
"What do I look like, an orc?" "This is not Warcraft in Space!" "It's much more... sophisticated!" "I know it's not 3-D!"
All of your points are good if you are trying to argue which game is more realistic. But games are games and they are important as long as they are FUN not as long as they are REALISTIC. You should be arguing how all this features and their units are balanced, probably with a rock,paper,scissors which is the most common way to balance and give depth to games. I'm surprised you aren't modded -1 non sequitur. .... check www.sirlin.net for info in game design
if: http://www.sirlin.net/archive/rock-paper-scissors/
Leading a target happens in TA only after a unit has 5 or more kills. It's one of the effects that distinguish a veteran from a regular unit. Experience in TA is implemented in an increase of ability rather than health, armour or damage, just one of many reasons I love it so much.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem