10 ms·
StarCraft: The past, present and future
- steckerbrett 11y agoIt's unfortunate how much the original game has rotted, the online servers are up but the program itself is becoming more are more unplayable. The OSX versions have been dead for a long time, on windows it seems to be getting harder and harder to run as well. The recent job posting hopefully indicate they're interested in de-breaking them, couldn't care less for a HD remake, just a version that actually works again. Impressed that Blizzard still runs the IRC servers necessary for that part of Battle.net though, far more modern games have lost all of their multiplayer within a couple of years let alone two decades on. There's third party remakes of the server daemons but you need a hacked up client to use them, or at least you did last I looked a decade ago.
- XorNot 11y agoTo be fair Blizzard's game release cycle is about that long too.
- terda12 11y agoIMO, the game works great on Windows. I can't imagine playing games like SC2 or CSGO on OSX. It's just not economical for Blizzard to do an OSX port. The game has been kinda dead for a while now, because it's so unaccessible to the general population. Games like Dota and League of Legends have taken the place of Starcraft 2 because it's pretty accessible to newbies yet offers a very high skill ceiling for those who want to play competitively. Starcraft 2 is simply too difficult of a game - you have to micromanage not only whole armies but also create new buildings and new units, looking for ways to boost your economy, and micromanaging research, all at the same time. It's simply too much to ask for a new player looking to break into the game. Dota existed because players just wanted to play a single hero inside an RTS game, and not have to control an army. The army is automated, there is no research, and there is no building/economy to worry about. You simply control one unit. Then League came and made it even more accessible to new players. Starcraft just simply cannot compete with both of these games, it just takes too much effort to even be remotely good at the game.
- steckerbrett 11y agoIt was originally released with PowerPC binaries on the disk, and then later re-released with Intel OSX compatible binaries, the only reason it doesn't work now is the requirement of 256 colour mode which was removed in like, OSX 10.5 or so. Starcraft 2 was released on OSX, same as all Blizzard games I'm aware of. This is a Cider wrapped OSX binary so not truly native, but works well enough that nobody seems to complain.
- qznc 11y agoAnd yet I shy away from Dota, LoL, etc, because it wants me to learn the stats of a hundred heroes before I can play it somewhat competitively.
- AlisdairO 11y agoStarcraft is really heavy on twitch skills and multi-tasking, while Dota rewards knowledge. Obviously you still need strong twitch/multitask skills to be really great at Dota, but you can go a surprising distance without them. I found that when picking up Dota I started to have fun and feel vaguely competent quicker - despite the fact that I didn't play for very long or get very good. I was aware that to progress far I'd need to pick up an enormous amount of information, but I could still feel good playing against other newbies. With Starcraft (where I generally hovered between high gold and low platinum on EU), I always felt like I was doing really badly. I think this was probably due to the stress of the multitasking, at which I'm no natural :-).
- kmkemp 11y agoI am a mid-gold elo LoL player and was a Diamond SC2 player when Diamond was the highest league. In my experience, MOBA's are winning because controlling one unit doesn't give you the same stress level that comes with controlling an army, setting control groups, preventing supply caps, scouting, considering what you need to build next to counter your opponent, and taking steps to stop every cheese strategy that your opponent might try. Even if you've executed at a high level, you can still lose in the blink of an eye if you fail to react. I stopped SC2 because it left me with an uneasy feeling once I got near the top. LoL, on the other hand, barely requires the kind of APM that SC2 does at a high level. It's more about knowing the correct items to build and when you can win a fight. Sure, you still need mechanics to get high creep score and execute in team fights, but you can play champions where that reliance is mitigated.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ThePhysicist 11y agoIf on OS X, you can probably run it inside a virtual machine (Windows 98 images can be downloaded for free from the MS site I think). Performance-wise it shouldn't be an issue on today's hardware.
- steckerbrett 11y agoRunning games in a VM is always a totally crappy experience, running it in wine is better but still not completely perfect. With Yosemite there's some graphical glitches which make it effectively unplayable, most of it runs at about 2 FPS.
- Fiahil 11y agoI play blizzard games on a MBP, and they're working quite fine; but, I'm not expecting alienware-like performance either.
- knd775 11y agoWhat do you mean by "alienware-like performance"? Even the higher end alienware systems offer subpar performance.
- realharo 11y agoI don't know about multiplayer, but for the campaign parts of the original StarCraft, there is a fan-made remake of them on the StarCraft 2 engine, http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/starcraft-mass-recall/ http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/starcraft-mass-recall/.
- rasz_pl 11y agosomeone could dissasemble it again http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/15820-starcraft/ http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/15820-starcraft/
- xlcashlx 11y agoFor those interested, the recent job opening mentioned can be found here -> http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/careers/posting.html?id=15000XZ http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/careers/posting.html?id...
- ploxiln 11y agoThe best way to run original Starcraft these days is Wine (implementing windows XP behavior), on OS X or linux. I've done both, it works pretty well. IIRC the mouse acceleration was sometimes problematic in OS X, you might need one of the many third-party utilities for OS X that let you disable or tweak it, e.g. USB Overdrive, or maybe Smoothmouse would work.
- k__ 11y agoAre there any scientific resources about how almost every mainstream success is based on a rather "direct" copy of something that already existed? Like here with WarCraft/StarCraft and Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000.
- doppel 11y agoI would say it's 50/50 between Warhammer 40k and the Alien franchise when it comes to StarCraft. Both StarCraft and WarCraft steals from a ton of other franchises and glues them together, reaffirming the saying "Good artists borrow, great artists steal!"
- ucaetano 11y agoActually, Starcraft is almost 90% Starship Troopers. From the armored exoskeletons (why do you think there's a "Marauder" unit in the game?), to the bug-like Zerg and the skinny-like Protoss.
- anon4 11y agoWarCraft was going to be a Warhammer game until the licensing deal fell through.
- k__ 11y agoYes, I know. But I hear people always complaining about how Y is like X was back in the days and nothing new. Is there any pattern behind this? People even say "Goethe hasn't invented Faust"
- icegreentea 11y agoYou will enjoy this documentary (Everything a Remix). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk Hardly 'scientific'... but how do you quantify copying.
- k__ 11y agohaha, thanks :D The question, I ask myself, is: What is worth copying and what not? I could imagine, that most of this success is simply luck. Everyone copies a different part of an already existing entity and those who hit the right one win. I mean, even successful companies like Google and Apple throw stuff on the wall an see what keeps sticking and they got some of the most intelligent people around.
- padobson 11y agoInteraction design is a craft, and gaming is the subcategory of interaction design that most often ventures into the world of art. But the thing that most constrains the artform is this "little brother" mindset. Instead of waiting for society to understand and comprehend the medium, those who craft video games work to make their medium more like film or novels or music or other "high" artforms. So I get a little twitchy when a gaming website does a story about a franchise like StarCraft and features the writing as the game changing aspect of it. StarCraft is not great because it's a sci-fi game. Warcraft is not great because it has ogres. Super Mario Brothers is not great because it has a chubby Italian plumber. Interaction design often requires some metaphor - some analogy to inspire your first interaction with the system. The plumber, the ogre, the Zealot. But once you push that first button, and the system responds, the analogy is no longer the inspiration for delight, for frustration, for joy or pain. The interaction itself becomes the driving factor. And the most perfectly crafted interactions can inspire the full range of emotions without relying on a coherent plot, orchestrated sound, or ten minutes of FMV. And StarCraft is one of the greatest examples of this. I don't care what a Zealot's motivation is, I only care about how much ground he can cover before the Hydra destroys him. My pulse is rising because the HP of my units is falling and my army is shrinking faster than my opponent's, not because I feel bad that the Zealots didn't procure the glory their race yearns after. If gaming is ever going to take its proper place in the pantheon of higher artforms, it needs to stop acting like something it's not. Video games aren't movies, and they never will be. I hope the video games industry figures this out someday.
- Vaskivo 11y agoThat was so beautiful it almost made me cry. Thank for putting into words what has been in my heart for so long.
- electricblue 11y agoThere is a balancing act that every successful game has to perform between gameplay and motivation. Without gameplay, games are dull passive experiences (see David Cage) with no pull to keep the player engaged. Without motivation gameplay feels empty and pointless like playing chess with yourself. Starcraft's campaign wouldn't have been half as engaging if it was a map pack with basic instructions before each mission. While games aren't movies they have learned a valuable lesson in using dramatic tension to make certain moments memorable.
- venomsnake 11y agoBlizzard's initial offerings were surprisingly dark and mature - both diablo, warcraft I&II and starcraft. Only starcraft's tone has not been degraded much so far (although the writing is weaker). I guess legacy of the void concludes a chapter of the company history. They are a e-sports company now. Their three latest games are gameplay driven with barely any story at all. Overwatch, HoTS and HS. Diablo III got a pass on its writing only because of the RMAH that was taking all the ire. I am not sure why the writing declined so much beginning with warcraft III - probably the gameplay requirements prevented the (extremely talented) team of giving their best. There is still great writing in Blizzard's games - but their last character I cared about was Thorim in Storm Peaks (pre model change - while he was a huge varkul). The writing in the ICC and Cataclysm main storyline was quite meh. It just felt like the writers have written some amazing storyline then got their leashes pulled and told to simplify and make absolutely understandable for a lot younger audience.
- cryoshon 11y agoYeah, Blizzard had a gothic tone in a lot of their early games. Unfortunately, they've replaced it with cartoony stuff for the most part. Writing wise they've fallen a long way, but it doesn't matter. Blizzard's primary success since their early games (pre-WoW) is understanding and abusing the psychology of addiction and creating videogames around that concept. They make ultra-streamlined (sometimes to the point of being nearly featureless) and ultra-polished games which are usually super easy to approach but tough to master. The writing is generally cartoony/poor, but the moneymaking potential of each game is very large. They still produce some winners, if you can get over the above.
- tgb 11y agoWarcraft 2 was arguably their most cartoony pc game. Maybe excepting heartstone. Writing probably peaked around Warcraft 3 but was pretty simple pre-Starcraft. So I don't see nearly as much doom and gloom about the state of blizzard as you do. Except the music. The twangs of diablo 1, the perky tunes of Warcraft 2, the terran theme of sc1...!
- 11y ago
- tylerpachal 11y agoI was just at the Legacy of the Void launch event at the Coex in Seoul. There was one developer on hand who took questions from the crowd and tried to answer them without giving away any spoilers. There were also a few show matches between popular players, and a wedding for a former Broodwar pro player; it was quite the event. Even though other genres are a lot more popular than RTS is now, the packed venue makes me optimistic about the future of the Starcraft franchise.
- greenleafjacob 11y agoI wish they went more into the history behind SC1 [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fV5KADifY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fV5KADifY