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!
evolution
-noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
Welcome to the English language. You must be new here.
"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)
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?"
This is the story of the torx screwdriver, as I've been told.
its eons old, and I feel no need to question it, it just makes sense.
In the beginning there was nothing, Great Inventor Dude (GID)
decided, well this kinda sucks..
GID declared that there be stuff, the first day he
created bits and pieces.
GID then decided that bits and pieces still weren't really
that cool and created phillips and flathead, that they may
rule over all bits and pieces, and should they will it turn,
into stuff.
Well to make a long story short, phillips and flathead multiplied
and were many, till either or both, populated the earth.
Then phillips and flathead rebelled, and instead of making stuff
and honoring GID they started questioning and taking stuff apart.
So in a huge deluge lasting 90 days and 90 nights GID submerged
the earth a pool of molten steel.
no phillips or flathead was spared, they were all consumed by the
fire and brimstone and high carbon molten steel.
Only one place on earth was safe, atop a mountain, not the highest
mountain on earth mind you, but it was that mountain, there lay a
forge, and torx was its name.
Henceforth only the righteous torx would remain, to assemble and
build stuff as GID willed, never to be taken apart by phillips and flathead..ever again.
This is my story and I'm sticking to it.
^_~
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.
Welcome our overlord... overlords?
We require more overlords.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
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.
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
Duh. The English language has evolved into a sentient being which is trying to push its pro-evolution believes on us. Damned liberal languages, screwing with our heads.
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.
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.
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.
I know! Everything is "this was an evolutionary process," or "it just sort of evolved that way." It's just about at the point where it's impossible to find any stories on Slashdot containing the word "design,", fer Designer's sake.
I haven't played Total Annihilation, though I've seen it mentioned on Slashdot before. I have something to pitch in here too, though, about another not-that-well-known RTS game, which I think is cool.
Dawn of War has no resource collection like you usually see in RTS games, instead, there are Strategic Points (plus some other similar things) on the map, and if your troops occupy them, you get more of the Requisition resource which you use to get more troops and buildings.
The Power resource is generated by power generators, which are buildings that you can build in your base (or on special places on the map).
Buildings are built by builder units, which build buildings and sometimes repair buildings and vehicles, but they don't gather any resources, so you usually only need a couple of them.
Also, instead of controlling individual units, most units are part of a squad, and you control the entire squad as if it is one unit. Characters (which don't level up like in Warcraft III, but can usually be upgraded) and vehicles are an exception, you control them individually, although most characters can be attached to a squad.
Squads can be individually upgraded, i.e. you can equip some of the members with special weapons, and you can even increase the number of squad members, so you don't need to produce individual units in your barracks and them move them to the front line, you can "build" the reinforcements right inside the combat.
All in all this makes the game much more action-oriented, with much less time wasted on resource collection and base building.
There's a demo, be sure to watch the intro movie, it's amazing. If you want to buy it, I recommend getting the Dawn of War Anthology set, which includes the two expansions. The second expansion is almost as expensive as the Anthology set, and includes a cool campaign, in which you can conquer the planet, and you decide which territories to conquer. The campaigns in the standard game and the first expansion aren't that cool.
I can't say much about the multiplayer quality, but there is at least one "cheese" map available, I'm sure you'll know it when you see it.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
>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" ?
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