KungKras said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
KungKras said:
CommunistHater said:
Starcratft??
It was a Stupid Warcraft clone.
Total Annhilation all the way |
So... In what country is Total Anihilation second only to football? (Soccer to americans)
Are Total Anihilantion pros regarded as celebrities?
Can any cool micro even be done in Total Anihilation? How about something as simple as balance?
Ultimately. Which game is the face of all RTS games? !!!!
|
Look, StarCraft is a good game, but really, its not the best RTS out there. And while Korea obsesses over it, that's not exactly a good thing. There have been better RTS games that have come out since, both in innovating the RTS genre and in just plain fun factor. But beyond that, even when StarCraft was king, some people didn't think it was the end all of RTS. Age of Empires II was much more interesting to me simply because it was a much bigger game in scope and didn't fall into basically one of three strategies to win. Nor did the game become so focused on tournament play or intense micromanagement.
But the basic thing is, StarCraft is a 10 year old game and has been overtaken by other RTS games which have surpassed it. Yes its the most popular and most played, but that doesn't mean it isn't without faults and showing its age. And if one game gets too big, it can actually hurt a perticular genre when people won't play anything else.
|
We obviously value different things in RTS games, so to reach a conclusion about wich game is the best we would have to argue about what aspects of the genre are the most important, wich would be almost impossible. But the guys that made this list obviously put popularity before innovation (That's why they put doom at#1 instead of Wolfenstein3D) Starcraft is the 'Doom' of the RTS games, just like Doom is the 'Doom' of FPS.
Aside from that, there are much more than three strategies in SC. And how is it beginning to show it's age? The only thing that hasn't aged that well in SC is the editor in my opinion.
|
I guess I should have specified. 'There's only 3 strategies when you play tournament people who only play Lost Temple all day.' And really, that's kind of what Starcraft has become, the ultimate method driven, I do this so you counter with that gg RTS. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But I just like more variety and options in an RTS. And the ability to do something new every game without having to go 'No, can't do that or I'll be defenseless to an early drop...no can't do that or I'll be defenseless to his Tanks...."
vlad321 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
KungKras said:
CommunistHater said:
Starcratft??
It was a Stupid Warcraft clone.
Total Annhilation all the way |
So... In what country is Total Anihilation second only to football? (Soccer to americans)
Are Total Anihilantion pros regarded as celebrities?
Can any cool micro even be done in Total Anihilation? How about something as simple as balance?
Ultimately. Which game is the face of all RTS games? !!!!
|
Look, StarCraft is a good game, but really, its not the best RTS out there. And while Korea obsesses over it, that's not exactly a good thing. There have been better RTS games that have come out since, both in innovating the RTS genre and in just plain fun factor. But beyond that, even when StarCraft was king, some people didn't think it was the end all of RTS. Age of Empires II was much more interesting to me simply because it was a much bigger game in scope and didn't fall into basically one of three strategies to win. Nor did the game become so focused on tournament play or intense micromanagement.
But the basic thing is, StarCraft is a 10 year old game and has been overtaken by other RTS games which have surpassed it. Yes its the most popular and most played, but that doesn't mean it isn't without faults and showing its age. And if one game gets too big, it can actually hurt a perticular genre when people won't play anything else.
|
I could never stand AoE2 too much since every faction was basically a copy of every other faction with minimal differences so I'm basically playing the same thing over ad over and over again while in SC you have 3 completely different factions.
|
Well in AOE2, each race has differences with unique units (like the British Longbowmen or the Japanese Samurai) but they also get unique advancements (like Chinese can research maximum farming techniques and the Monguls can research all forms of gunpowder tech). But like any good RTS series, the sequels improved on these features. AOEIII have much more variety and every race has many more unique features and units. But to make it even better, you get a 'consulate', to allow you to make pacts with other races and use their units. Plus you can find 'Native' units on various maps, from Pawnee Indians to Shaolin Monks to Jesuit Missionaries who ride horses and wield guns.
There's really a wide variety in the AOE series.
