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."
Total Annihilation... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Fun stuff (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Slowest. Newsday. Ever. (Score:2, Interesting)
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: 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.
Re:Fun stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
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.