Starcraft vs. Sins of a Solar Empire » Forum Post by CraigHB

I guess the majority of people disagreed with you

No, he's just flat-out wrong. His 1-word portrayal of the races is simply inaccurate to anyone who understands the game on a deep level.

The Terrans are not "all-around". The Zerg can rush, but the Protoss tend to have a more powerful rush. And the Protoss aren't about "strength".

Successfully updated karma reason!

LOL... simpletons... HAHAHAHHAHA

here let me show you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation

http://archive.gamespy.com/top10/february04/rts/index11.shtml

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tauwisdom/anon1.html

and yes, any popularity contest, SC is the one people say is better, but in terms of what a game gave the industry, TA is the better... if I need to tell you WHY, I will, but its summed up in the 2nd link

Successfully updated karma reason!

I only played a little StarCraft, and that would be the demo. Not even the whole demo, mind you. It lost me. Sins is much better for that aspect. I played as much as I could get of teh demo. I'd personally prefer Sins.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Here are some progamer StarCraft videos.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The FPS games do have extensive multi-player capabilities adding to their value. In fact, Crysis looks pretty amazing in that regard. I did play one FPS online a little bit, Call of Duty I believe. That was pretty good because it was all team based, but it didn't hold my interest long. Usually, there's some kid wizard on a console kicking the crap out of everybody. I have zero interest in competing with that on a keyboard and mouse. I'm not into video games enough to play on a console or add a game controller to my PC.

Wow, what kind of FPS is it? Does it come with a built-in AimBot or something like that? Mouse is superior to a gamepad by far for targeting purposes.

R0fLz: I guess the majority of people disagreed with you StarCraft was way more popular then Total Annihilation. I actually liked both but StarCraft and especially Broodwar are so much superior

"Was"? It is far more popular than TA. It's still extremely popular in South Korea, it's the only game that was in all World Cyber Games (and still there).

LOL... simpletons... HAHAHAHHAHAhere let me show you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation
http://archive.gamespy.com/top10/february04/rts/index11.shtml
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tauwisdom/anon1.html
and yes, any popularity contest, SC is the one people say is better, but in terms of what a game gave the industry, TA is the better... if I need to tell you WHY, I will, but its summed up in the 2nd link

Article 2... Blah blah blah hundreds of units, no attempts to balance it, some automation that can't possibly work in a competitive game.

Clearly written by another noob just like you. Starcraft gave the industy a first cybersport-quality RTS that is still being played competitively. Starcraft gave the industy a first balanced RTS. First RTS with completely different yet balanced races. It gave the industry the Battle.Net. Most RTS are successors of Starcraft. TA has what, the only successor - Supreme Commander (btw it sucks)? And that's all?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Starcraft was good for me because it was my first RTS. But now, I largely prefer to play Sins or supreme Commander.
Starcraft 2 will be Starcraft in 3D, The dev will say they worked a llot on the units to redesign them. That's ok but it can't justify not adding new gameplay features like a decent zoom.
That's a game for cybersport(what's a silly word, you can't do sport on a computer) so I will never buy it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That's a game for cybersport(what's a silly word, you can't do sport on a computer) so I will never buy it.

I don't know how it is in your country, but in my country cybersport is an official sport since 13 November 2003 http://www.cybersport.ru/comp.htm

Successfully updated karma reason!

That's ok but it can't justify not adding new gameplay features like a decent zoom.

Zoom is not in SC2 because it's a terrible idea for any competitive RTS.

Remember: when you're dealing with a game that is primarily designed around human beings competing with one another, you don't want hardware to give one guy a significant advantage. It's the same reason why you want to make sure that, in an FPS, basic shadowing still work on the lowest graphical settings. Because if someone can turn off shadows, people who think they're well hidden won't be.

If you have zoom, someone with a 30" 2560x1600 monitor will have an huge advantage over a guy running at 1600x1200, who will have an advantage over a guy running at 1280x1024, etc. He who can see (and therefore control) more of the playing field has an inherent advantage over he who cannot.

This is completely, 100% unacceptable for a competitive game. It'd be like allowing steroids in competitive sports; you either take the juice or you get left behind.

If you take away zoom, then everyone's on an equal playing field.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Are you crazy? The zoom is exactly the same whatever resolution you have. Let's check Sins of a solar empire or Supreme Commander if you don't believe me.
You can see the whole battlefield in 1900x1200, 1600x1050,1024x768... this is not a question of hardware specifications but gameplay mechanics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Are you crazy? The zoom is exactly the same whatever resolution you have. Let's check Sins of a solar empire or Supreme Commander if you don't believe me.
You can see the whole battlefield in 1900x1200, 1600x1050,1024x768... this is not a question of hardware specifications but gameplay mechanics.

I don't think you understood what he's saying. Let's just assume that in game "X", the most comfortable viewing for the average person is 1 soldier = 1 centimeter long, that is to say that at that scale it is easiest to quickly identify and differentiate between units and manage them accordingly. One person with a small monitor will adjust the zoom level until this scale is achieved, but he will only be able to view and manage a smaller slice of the game map, whereas a person with a huge monitor can set the zoom level farther back in order to reach the same scale, but by doing so he will see a larger portion of the game map at any given moment. So having zoom capacity does translate into an advantage for people with the bucks for larger monitors. The only way to fairly allow a zoom feature would be to force all computers to play the game in a window that was no larger than the smallest monitor commercially available (not that window-play capability is unprecedented; people just wouldn't appreciate not being able to utilize their whole monitors).

Successfully updated karma reason!

blizzard knows how to create good art, that is for sure. Starcraft was good and innovative for its time. but its glory does not last forever. Within 20 years or so, when the next generation grows up, they will have some other game to be obsessed about. It is like Elite way back when, but now...the space fight and flight simulator genere has moved on.

One thing is true, when SC 2 comes out, people will go buy the game as if they are all hypnotized and under a spell to go and buy it. So it really does not matter whether Blizzard meets fans expectation, if they don't people will either mod it or they will go back to SC 1. Or they will tolerate SC 2's new flaws and learn to adapt and live with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think you understood what he's saying. Let's just assume that in game "X", the most comfortable viewing for the average person is 1 soldier = 1 centimeter long, that is to say that at that scale it is easiest to quickly identify and differentiate between units and manage them accordingly. One person with a small monitor will adjust the zoom level until this scale is achieved, but he will only be able to view and manage a smaller slice of the game map, whereas a person with a huge monitor can set the zoom level farther back in order to reach the same scale, but by doing so he will see a larger portion of the game map at any given moment.

Completely false, on Warcraft 3 you have different resolutions and a zoom level. taht's not a valid point, Warcraft 3 has a zoom level and different resolutions.

So having zoom capacity does translate into an advantage for people with the bucks for larger monitors. The only way to fairly allow a zoom feature would be to force all computers to play the game in a window that was no larger than the smallest monitor commercially available (not that window-play capability is unprecedented; people just wouldn't appreciate not being able to utilize their whole monitors).

You don't know what you are talking about. If you play a game like Supreme Commander at 1024x768 : you just have to turn the mousewheel to see the Entire Map. So even if you have a low spec PC, you can see exactly the same as a high end PC, the only thing that will change is the size of the icons that replace the units when you completely zoom out(but this is the same actually with Starcraft when you use monitors with different resolutions : larger resolutions stretches the units).
When you have a such big zoom, there is not imbalance between players simply because every player can adjust the size of the battlefield as he want. If you can't see enough units, zoom out, if you want to micromanage few units, zoom in. The minimap is even obsolete with this kind of system. But I know it's difficult to understand for "competitive players" that are focus on the same static gameplay for years.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Completely false, on Warcraft 3 you have different resolutions and a zoom level. taht's not a valid point, Warcraft 3 has a zoom level and different resolutions.

I looked for one when I was playing it, to no avail. All the screenshots I've seen of the game use the same apparent zoom level for gameplay. I think you could zoom in, but I don't recall you being able to zoom out to any great degree.

If you play a game like Supreme Commander at 1024x768 : you just have to turn the mousewheel to see the Entire Map.

First, shouting is rude.

Second, you're missing the point.

For any given monitor, there is a zoom level that makes it essentially impossible to play the game effectively. That level is the point where individual units are no longer reasonably discernible. That is, it's too small for you to find your Zerglings.

Let's say you have two monitors. One is 2560x1600 monitor, the other is 1280x1024. Let's also say that the two monitors share the same dot-pitch, so the big one is much larger physically than the small one. Lastly, given that, let's say that the point at which you can no longer distinguish individual Zerglings is the point when a Zergling is about 6x6 pixels in size. This denotes the maximum useful zoom level, and thus it denotes the only zoom level at which any skilled player will play the game.

Well, because the big monitor has more resolution than the small one, the small one will only get to see a quarter of the game field's area that the big monitor does.

Now, you mention that "the only thing that will change is the size of the icons that replace the units when you completely zoom out". Well, if you replace models with icons, then all kidns of things break. Replacing a Zergling model with a Zergling flatcard icon only adds clutter to the screen; a group of Zerglings can mesh into a single icon, which is impossible to micro. This gets worse when you start getting into things like Overlords (unit-based farms for the Zerg), larva (unit-based unit production for the Zerg) and burrowed Zerg units. Not to mention cloaked units.

But I know it's difficult to understand for "competitive players" that are focus on the same static gameplay for years.

Yes, it is an insult to say that Starcraft created an RTS form of Chess, gameplay so perfect and balanced that it can withstand 10 years of vigoros play.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Herrr. I will explain slowly.
On Starcraft, when you use the minimap, you see your zerg or protoss as icons no ?
OK, so basically you macromanage your units on the minimap(seeing your base and the ennemy units) and micromanage on the main screen. OK you folow me ? The main problem is you have to move the camera lateraly and you must have a good training to coordinate what you see on the minimap with what you have on the main screen.
With a game like sins or Supreme Commander you can have the minimap on the main screen. If you want to see your base, you zoom out, put your cursor where is the base and zoom in to do what you have to do. It's fairly more practical and natural than put your cursor on the base in the minimap, clicking on and return on the main screen to act.
It's the same for units, If you want to micromanage the protoss, you just have to zoom on the big pack of icons and you can use the cloaking ability. You don't need to go on the left screen each time you want to micromanage another squadron and you gaine lot of time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You don't need to go on the left of the screen to click the minimap each time you want to micromanage another squadron and you gain lot of time.

Sorry but I can't edit my older post

Successfully updated karma reason!

You don't need to go on the left of the screen to click the minimap each time you want to micromanage another squadron and you gain lot of time.

I don't need to do that now. Those units are in a selection group, and I can center on them just by double-clicking the appropriate key for that group twice.

Zooming out just to zoom in somewhere else is never as fast or as efficient as simply popping over there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And how do you do selection groups without clicking on the minimap : straffing with left/right keys?
I think you should really try the demos of Supreme Commander or Sins of a Solar Empire before saying its a bad feature for competitive gaming.
I was not very enthusiastic the first time I heard about this. Now, it's difficult for me to return to "classic" RTS, simply because it's too close from the units and it's harder to anticipate/adapt my play style only with the tiny minimap.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

That's ok but it can't justify not adding new gameplay features like a decent zoom.Zoom is not in SC2 because it's a terrible idea for any competitive RTS.

Then tell competition to go stick its head in the toilet. Zoom is more important. Oh, and I still don't buy your reasoning.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can we please just agree that SupCom, Soase, TA are very different games to Starcraft and Warcraft.

They suit the styles of different people. But the fact that units in Starcraft can't shoot while moving is scary.

And personally, I don't like games in which the winner is decided by their clicking ability. And please don't call Starcraft an RTS.

But remember that there are TA fanboys that love TA so much, that they recreated Total Annihilation from scratch with a 3D Engine (with strategic zoom). And it is fully functional and awesome, and updated regularly with new content, mods, maps and units. And this is despite SupCom being released. Even SupCom can't fully replace TA.

Click me to find out more.

I haven't heard of any Starcraft gamers looking to do this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like games having the zooming ability. I recently replayed command and conquer 2, and i soooo wished i can zoom in or out with ease. I am not sure if SC 2 will have zoom abilities, but i hope it does, If it does not, there is no way i will be buying it. Are we being spoiled by sup com and Soase. Yes, but then...that is where the zoom function is changing the RTS genere. It is not earth shattering, but it adds a small layer of strategic depth.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

It is not earth shattering, but it adds a small layer of strategic depth.

Ease of control, actually. Just like in warcraft 1 -> 2, they added the ability to give right click orders -instead of clicking "move" then where to, I could just right click on the ground to give the selected units orders.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally I find mini-map usage far more intuitive, and far less clunky, than the zoom system used in Sins. Fortunately Sins is so slow paced (and there's so little to do) that the interface can be arcane as it wants to be and its not a serious impediment to play.

I haven't played SC, so I can't speak to that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agreed Ron, zooming has a ease of control. but i think when taylor made sup com, the zoom function allow the Ai to attack a player on multiple fronts. In SC 1, i don't think it will do that. In that sense, the zooming function allows the game to have bigger maps and more units. but then, of course, it becomes unmangeable to play after too many units on the zoom out screen. So the AI has to be good at automating things for the player.

having the zoom out function allows for less of a the hitting keybord shortcut frenzy, because you can have more than one groups of the same units on different spots of the map. But whether that resorts to more click fest, i don't know, and i can't say. Because until SC 2 comes out and if it does has zoom out, it will be interesting to see how it affects the pros in playing their games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The reason I would never buy Sins is because games take too long to make it a viable multiplayer game for me, meaning the game would be limited to single player vs AI. There is also no single player campaign. An RTS that is limited to single player skirmishes vs AI is basically worthless.

The key to any RTS being a good and popular game and having longevity is its multiplayer because RTS AI tends to be weakest and not at all a challenge to a human player. This means that once you learn mechanics of a game, the challenge and fun of the game is gone. What really gives RTS games staying power is fun and competitive multiplayer. This is the reason there are hundreds of thousands of people playing StarCraft to this day, with new people joining the game on daily basis. The game is fun in multiplayer. For Sins this aspect is very small. Games take way too long the make multiplayer viable for a large fan base, and I am sure there are other mechanics too that make multiplay questionable. An RTS with not strong multiplayer component is not worth the code its written in.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are a couple of RTS's in this world with really strong AI, but I'll grant that they're rare. The only two that spring to mind are Rise of Nations and Dawn of War with the Dawn of Skirmish AI mod. Not coincidentally, those are the only two RTS games that have had any staying power on my hard drive. Sins lasted 2 weeks.

Successfully updated karma reason!