Originally Posted by Uranium - 235

It doesn't take a lot to pass up what qualifies as 'new content' by Blizzard standards. Their games are damn-near complete copy-pastes of entire pieces of other games, or even their own. Their art styles are even merging into one generic cartoony mush.

Well, most people don't give SC1 the credit it deserves for its asymmetrical balance. Almost all RTS' to date have direct unit equivalencies (Faction A tank is used mostly like faction B's tank, even if it costs less and shoots worse) while SC1 didn't have any real direct racial parallels. They play completely differently. One reason I prefer to play SC1 to WC3 is that WC3 goes back to the prevalent unit equivalencies. Each race has what amounts to the same siege engine, even if they do have variation in cost and effectiveness. Each starting infantry (NE archers being the exception, and they're only just switched with every other races' second unit) fulfills the same early role. Compare that to zealots and zerglings. While they initially seem analogous (melee early infantry) their use is completely different.

(Incidentally, what singleplayer RTS isn't "kill the AI base" over and over again? Starcraft had excellent interior missions and several interesting variations in levels that kept them from being "do x repeatedly.)

Funny that best games ever made were all considered that in spite of loads of bugs, glitches, and unfinished content. I'm not saying bugs make a game good, but just because a game has very few bugs doesn't make it in any way, shape, or form, a good GAME.

Care to name the ones you think are the "best games ever made?" Most people I know rank Starcraft up there, especially if you restrict your comments to the RTS genre. I can't think of any other game that still has as many players ten years after release. I'll go out on a limb and say that SC1 is still the best RTS available with CoH coming in a close second. Its certainly the only one I'll still play regularly with friends.

I do like how you claim that SC1 did nothing new for the genre besides the advent of Battle.net, CD keys, three uniquely and differently balanced races, a powerful custom map editor, and a fairly good story. Several of those are innovations that changed the entire face of online RTS gaming, but apparently, those aren't innovative and are carbon-copies of existing products. Since then, the main change in RTS gaming I can think of are the level-up heroes (hey, that's a Blizzard idea too!), squads, and control points. Relic deserves a lot of credit for those last two. I'll not deny that CoH was innovative and unique. Most features in RTSs are standard features because Blizzard made such a comprehensive and incredible game that companies were forced to use them or receive poor comparisons.

The only thing I hold against SC is the absolutely shameless rip-off of Warhammer 40k IPs. The Zerg are almost a unit-for-unit rip from W40K's Tyranids (in looks and function). The Terrans are basically Space Marines. You could put the Protoss in with the Chaos play-style... well, maybe the Eldar. No... nah, ok. I guess the Protoss are sort of unique.

WH40k's Space Marines are very similar to Heinlein's MI. The thing that differentiates the SMs from the MI are the religious aspects and the genetic modification, neither of which feature in Starcraft at all. Further, the SMs are exceedingly powerful, something nobody would ever call a SC Marine. Saying "men in powered armor with rifles came from WH40K" is ignorant at best. Zerg...that's a little bit less defined, but "giant insectiod aliens who absorb genetic material for their own uses" have been around in science fiction for a while too.

edit: Sorry for the Starcraft derail.