well i heard of this quite outstanding case, a game which was released in 1998 and is still played worldwide. does anybody have experience with that game? why is it still this popular?

Beats me. When I played it a few years ago, I found absolutely nothing special in it. Just the genre's standard fare, with badly 'scripted' missions taking away even the tiniest shred of strategy, and the key element winning seemed to be exclusively speed. Mind you I didn't play till the end, it just wasn't interesting enough.

i was told that this game was primary designed for multiplayer gaming. a friend mentioned that it is still a part of the so called 'world cyber games' and if you are good at it, you could make lots of money somewhere in asia (japan? china? korea?). i think i will gather further information. sounds interesting concerning its age.

I think it was Korea where it's ridiculously popular. I never found much interest on the game, as I normally dislike campaigns and in multiplayer in five minute it was decided who was the winner, the first to create a horde beats completely the other.

today i was shown some multiplayer replays and i now think that there is much more about this game especially concerning tactics. it seems that sometimes one single unit can do much more damage than a whole crowd (if it is controlled carefully and fast enough), something i missed in c&c red alert for example.

I've played multiplayer a few times and always it consisted on sending a horde quickly, and a pair of friend played much more than me to it and say the same. But strategy games rarely are well balanced.

due to my search for closer information i was introduced to some so called gosu-gamers (elite players) this weekend who play the game for several years now and totally disagree with you. they say that each race has a bunch of strategies dependending on the opponent's race, the map (mucho/low/intended amount of players,...), personal and adversarial skills, game type (1on1,2on2,...) etc. i was also shown some of their replays with additional comments... quite impressiv! btw. it is said that 'the excellent game balance between the races' vitally contributed to starcaft's success. (something similar can be found on wikipedia's starcraft entry). :p

Well, they are too leet for me I suppose. As I said, I'm basing my opinion on playing the game on Blizzard servers, and I don't care what somebody said on wikipedia or what people who play all year say about as nothing changes that all the times I played in less than five minutes a horde arrived destroying all in sight, something that doesn't happen on for example Spring.

You are basing your opinion on what other people say. Play the game, it can be found cheap along the expansion in any videogame store, or at least Game had it just a few months ago.

well, when you were at school, didn't you form your opinion on what the teacher and the books told you? don't you watch tv nor read the newspaper^^ ggnore, no more comment on that... tztztz

remember: i actually saw them playing on the battle.net, iccup servers and (of course) in their replays, and this differs much from what you described based on your poor personal experiences. as long as you don't know me you cannot judge the way i obtain an opinion, but talking to people who really know how to play cannot be the worst way... and yes, i think they will bash you within the first 3 minutes.

so long, and thanks for all the fish

nis

Ok, I hope not being offensive but this kind of thing always makes me angry. An opinion based on personal experience is poorer than an opinion based on what other people says or does?

Modern schools is based on the idea that you won't spend time trying to learn things, so they go the quick way of teaching you them. Does that mean that being told the gravity constant is worse than expending years trying to discover it by yourself? No way, personal experience is always better.

And hell, I don't know you yet I can know not playing a game won't make you know a game. Using that reasoning, I can't criticize my goverment, shit I don't know the previous president of my country (Spain), I just saw him on TV, who am I to criticize him for manipulating information and doing what he pleased?

What matters are the actions, what matters is the practise, you can know all the theory you wish, you may see all the people you want do something, you can hear all you can about it, but for knowing something you need to do it.

Now, now, people - first real topic for quite some time here, and already fighting?

Let me point out a few (obvious) things:

It's undisputed that the game has a 'cult' following of expert players who are bound to know every last detail about it. Obviously, these people are going to love the game. Obviously, they won't agree with a verdict like the one Wandrell or I gave, and obviously (because they've played it so much), they'll know arguments against everything a casual player (like me, who has only played a few times years ago) could possibly bring up. They can easily swamp you with lots and lots of detailed descriptions why the game is absolutely great. None of this makes criticism less valid automatically, though. It comes from a different perspective on the game. And obviously, a Wikipedia article will be written by people who care enough about the game to take the time to (which is fans).

In any case, Nis, you should hear both sides (like you're doing), but don't forget trying it yourself in the heat of discussion. Before, you won't be able to judge it

i do not have to know how to lay eggs in order to judge whether an egg is rotten or not

~ prof. dr. hans-jürgen ewers, tu berlin ~

@ mr. creosote
oh you were a little bit faster than me

@ topic
all i intended to say is that in my opinion there is much more about this game than a casual player perhaps explores. i have some experiences in playing rts games such as c&c red alert, dune ii, c&c3 and even that bad game warfront so i can draw comparisons and perhaps i might judge even if i have no personal playing practice in sc:bw. if a game of the last century is still a part of a world championship like wcg while others aren't there must be more than just the question "who has or can produce more units".

apart there is nothing wrong in practical knowledge, i myself have learned a profession and worked about two years before i attended university but i really do not think that practical knowledge always is higher-valued than theoretical knowledge. it depends...

Saying 'many people like it, so there must be something to it' isn't a good argument, either. There's always what people call the 'the winner takes it all' effect. Something can be totally mediocre, but because many people use it, participate in it and talk about it, more people join in and cause more interest by yet more people again. All completely detached of the question of quality...

Still, Nis, I haven't heard your opinion on the game, just what other people you know say about it, and that you used just that to defend the game was one of the things that angered me.

I too have played plenty real time strategy games, yet I can think of few which required strategy, or even games where you could design a tactic. In Nexus and Homeworld you may find some strategy, Lost Souls has an interesting system where you design the units but couldn't try it enough to see if you really can develop your own tactics, and Spring is a multiplayer free strategy game using Total War that is quite balanced, which even thought I don't think is very balanced your skills may affect the results of the game.

But Starcraft... Well, if it is so popular there must be something to it, and if people thinks "zerg rush" when hearing that name there also must be something to it.

@ mr. creosote
i am not a stupid&blind mtv mainstream teen. ^^

@ wandrell
obviously we do not (and will not) share the same opinion, so i'm going to stop aguing at this point

@topic
zergling rush is just one zerg possibility if you a) know where the opponent base actually is on the map b) he hasn't scouted you yet so the surprise effect is on your side c) your micro skills are better than your opponent's. it is one of those determination things. if it works you win, if your opponent can counter (indeed there are several possibilities) you loose coz your opponent has established a stronger economy. since 1998 many updates and patches have been released which influenced the game balance and major strategies of each race so perhaps your information and personal experiences are just out-dated.

First of all, I wasn't talking about you, but about all the people on this planet in general, and second, it doesn't matter anyway. The effect can be seen in all social classes and age groups.

the popularity of Starcraft is based on the company which made it: Blizzard. this company was the maker of the Warcraft series, and back then many people bought starcraft out of that reason. I also own the game and i think it is a pretty good space strategy game. some part of it is quite sluggish other parts are quite good. I prefer "Ascendancy" from the logic factory.

I found starcraft to be generally enjoyable, but nothing awesome.