The Evolution of StarCraft 89
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."
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
The StarCraft Brand and SC2 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Slowest. Newsday. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Insightful? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The StarCraft Brand and SC2 (Score:4, Insightful)