is Starcraft really the best RTS ever?

Starcraft was majestic and beautiful at the time. Gameplay was awesome at the time. Unfortunately, I never played Total Annihilation so I couldn't even get the chance to experience CT's spiritual precedessor to the awesome Supreme Commander.

Avitu666, great pointer dude =-). You are 100% right, x million of people CAN be totally wrong. If you want to know what he means:

 January 30, 1933 - Adolf Hitler is sworn in as Chancellor of Germany

Starcraft was majestic and beautiful at the time. Gameplay was awesome at the time. Unfortunately, I never played Total Annihilation so I couldn't even get the chance to experience CT's spiritual precedessor to the awesome Supreme Commander.

Avitu666, great pointer dude =-). You are 100% right, x million of people CAN be totally wrong. If you want to know what he means:

 January 30, 1933 - Adolf Hitler is sworn in as Chancellor of Germany

Had this debate a few times over the years!

It's obviously subjective: people like different things. However, there are a few technical reasons why there were better games for me, back in the day.

On the positive side, Starcraft had an engrossing, well developed storyline. This is not a necessity for a good game, but I've found that my own favourite titles have always had strong plots and characterisations. This allowed the developers to weave an intriguing tale around the three different factions, giving us reasons to love and hate them all, both on and off the battlefield. The effect of this mechanic cannot be understated: when the gameplay mechanics begin to wear thin, the plot keeps us interested and keeps us playing. Storyline and artistic direction are heavily emphasised in every Blizzard title (just look at WoW), and I think those aspects lend a lot of personality to a game like Starcraft which didn't do much that was new, but did what it did very well indeed.

However, other than its superb level of polish, underneath it all the actual game itself was pretty ordinary. Lots of base-building and resource harvesting leading up to the inevitable bum-rush, sprinkled with a few tactical mission-based levels that were heavily scripted to spice up the action a bit, a few lead characters playing out roles on the battlefield: all stuff we'd seen before, even in Blizzard's own Warcraft series. You couldn't select more than 12 units at a time, which meant co-ordinating big strikes became a tricky click-fest. Each unit had heaps of personality, with a bunch of different functions that were upgradeable, but again, nothing new or even very different to what had come before.

Games like Total Annihilation (I'm a big fan) gave us the ability to map as many waypoints as we liked for any unit. I could spend a few minutes telling a construction unit what to do for the next 20 steps, and then leave it to get the job done. I never had to worry about running out of resources, I only had to worry about balancing income against expenditure. To this day, TA has the best resource model I've seen: capturing and holding resources was important to your long term success, but they would never run out, meaning that nuking the enemy required that you outplay him in combat, rather than out-harvest him from a resource perspective. Remember not wanting to waste precious units in SC until you were ready for the big push? In TA you could just build and send, knowing that you could always build more units. Which reminds me, TA also had a nicer queueing system, in that you could queue as many units for a build as you liked. Hundreds even, and just let the factory pump them out. 3D terrain, great explosions, maps that were truly massive and diverse and required you to take totally different strategies in terms of land, sea and air...lots of truly innovative features in a fast-paced RTS classic.

Without getting into too much more detail, the above just serves to illustrate some of the features I feel were vastly better in games other than Starcraft. TA had its own issues, such as vaguely indistinguishable factions and a campaign that was unimaginative and much too long. C&C broke ground with its nicely integrated cinematics and interesting mission design, but fell short in areas like gameplay balance and re-playability. And does anyone remember the gem that was Dark Reign?

We'll never all agree on what the best RTS is, or even was. Games like Powermonger which came out in the early 90s was a great RTS, which I first played on the Amiga, and had a totally different take on gameplay to the now well-established base-building and tactical combat games. Dune 2 made real time strategy accessible to the masses and had phenomenal subject matter to draw from. Warcraft took some of those ideas and injected a great deal of personality into the mix. Starcraft finally gave us Warcraft in space, and some of the most poignant moments in gameplay history (remember how you felt Jim's pain, losing Kerrigan to the Zerg?) in a polished and appealing package that people still actually buy today.

I'm really keen for someone to come up with something new in the RTS space. Some great attempts have been made in the Total War series (awesome stuff) and, to a lesser extent, the newer Warhammer games. Great as it was, the Starcraft formula has been done to death (even before SC itself) and it's time we were treated to something new!

The only people who think Starcraft is the best is the masses. I.E. multiplayer for the mass player. Much like all Blizzard games. As for TA it got the balance right. Its a bit like existentualism v communism. Starcraft is not **** but as good as TA and numerous others? Err i don't think so and those that have disected a game with all its criteria rather than its multiplayer experience are a better judge.

Look at diablo, on review it got in its mid 70's. I guess that tells you something about the depth of games blizzard make. Multiplayer for the masses and little else. Starcraft,Diablo,WoW all demand multiplayer without it these games are ****

Those that disect their games know that Starcraft and its hype is far from the greatest RTS.

But aslong as the masses play and pay the multiplayer experience then the Koreans and Chinese will be all to happy. As we all know this does not give it the badge of the greatest RTS. Does it??

I personally think that Starcraft is one of the greatest games of all time.  Its one of the only games I have played that I have continued to play for such a length of time.  But I also realise that this is only an opinion and everybody is free to disagree with me or even throw insults at me so while im here I'll also mention my views on other rts games too. 

Starcraft- great balance, great multiplayer, interesting story in single player, game has personality.  I admit though that other features have been added in other games and it doesnt have the graphics of other games (though in a strategy game, graphics dont matter.....unless it adds to the immersion of the experience)

Warcraft 3- really didnt like this game.  The game always seemed to be down to the hero and if you lost your hero game over.  No real strategy it was simply a case of kill the other guys hero

TA- It has ugly graphics (but that really doesnt matter).  I do like this game, though it lacks personality and I found it to be boring in the single player.  Multiplayer was quite good but I never really got into it and I did try.

C&C- well the single player campaigns are usually not bad with the cut-scenes but the game usually devolves into massing tanks and steamrolling the enemy.

Dawn of War - A good game but I think that it still has some balance issues to sort out in multiplayer (though they might of fixed them but I havent checked). Id say this is my favourite after starcraft.

COH- Urgh another WW2 game.  Though its a RTS rather than FPS.  I didnt really get into this game, probably cos Im bored with the endless amount of WW2 games.

Feel free to disagree with me because I realise that people look for different things in a game.  All I really saying is that for me SC is one of the greatest as it has what I was looking for 

yes, starcraft is the best rts ever made. The story is great, the design of the races is cool and ihave never such a balanced rts in  my life

Starcraft & AoE2 are my all-time favorites. I like WC3 a lot tho. DoW40k and CoH are good for single player, but there multiplayer is for newbs and there's barely anybody playing them online.
apanizo

CoH is easily more challenging than SC and AoE2 together, so I can't see how the game is for newbs. Dawn of War isn't perfectly balanced, but I've had much more fun playing it in LANs than playing SC. I'd say SC is the game for noobs, as it's so much simpler than modern RTS's. As someone mentioned before, it's basicly rock-paper-scissors with some strategy added.

I'm not saying the most talented RTS players aren't playing SC, just that SC is more noob friendly. 

Starcraft is the Counter-Strike of RTSs, whether you like it or not.  I personally enjoy WC3 and SupCom more, but I'm not so naive as to think my opinion is the only factor that makes a good game. rpgsuperfan

Har har har... What a flawed way of thinking. The Counter-Strike of RTSs? Listen up bud; Just because Britney sold a truckload of albums doesn't make her a particulary interesting artist. Try looking at the sales of videogames; Whats the top seller in UK at the moment? Spiderman 3. Does that mean Spiderman 3 is a good game? Hell no, it's mediocre at best.

Granted. Starcraft is a classic, and people still play it after 10 years, whereas people won't even know there had been a Spiderman game 10 years from now. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft now is horribly, horribly dated. Today, there are so many new concepts, and/or old concepts revitalized. The cover system in Company of Heroes, and strategic zoom in SupCom are just 2 examples. Starcraft has it's faction balance, and that's probably the only thing which makes it playable today; it's a fairly good platform for competitive play. But do NOT try to play this one as if it's the god of all RTS's. It doesn't have one chance against games like Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander. It just doesn't.

Edit: Various typos

Edit: As another poster wrote in this thread; It's not the best RTS ever. It's just a classic.

During at least the first 5 years of Starcraft, it was definatley the best. imo, it still is the best. But many new RTS games have come so far using the gameplay of Starcraft. It set the bar of RTS gaming back in 1998, and still does.

Look at Warcraft III, it is basically a clone of Starcraft's gameplay.

 

doomsdaydave11

Im sorry but you are completely wrong.

WC3's formulae a total departure from SC, the former of which focus on Heroes, "creeping" and micro-intensive gameplay.

Get a clue before you comment.

Starcraft: Mother of all RTS games. (Or Father)

I belive that Blizzard is the Father of RTS and Relic is Mother of RTS :)

holyknight234

Wrong Starcraft came along at the height of RTS's popularity and the genre was already well established, if any one company is the mother of all RTS's its Westwood with their classic Dune II which pretty much created the genre.

Anyway, yes Starcraft is an excellent RTS and one of the best of all time, but to say that its better then any current RTS is ridiculous after 9 years you would think someone would have improved on the genre O.o.

My personal favorite RTS is and always will be C&C:Red Alert; probably because it was my first, but also I've never had as much fun with an RTS as I had with Red Alert and I never even played it online.

Everyone has their own opinions so this thread is a bit pointless.NormJ_85

except that the point of this thread is to get people's opinion. 

I've heard rumors that Starcraft is the best RTS ever, even now. However, I own Starcraft, and it may be great old-school gaming, but it's not as good as COH, SupComm, or even possibly Warcraft III. At least I think... what do you Starcraft fans think?

derekc124

I actually hate every other Blizzard product save for Starcraft & WC2. It simply has the best gameplay of any RTS out there for several reason. Good balance between races (probably the most important factor). Fast gameplay. Most games end very quickly if up against a lesser skilled player thus you can move on to a better game rather than play it out for longer than you should. It is simple enough that many players can get good at it to maintain some aspect of a challenge during online play.

I personal like complexity but with online gaming, you have to maintain a balance between complexity and general player intelligence. If you make it too complex, most player will never get good thus it will be very hard to get a good challenging game going online. This has been the problem with WC3 from the start. The difference between a very skilled player and a normal player is so wide that it gets too boring to play. Instead we play custom maps created by users like DOTA and various towers wars instead of the RTS type maps. In the case of Starcraft, Blizzard found the right balance to maintain a large user base and give even the most skilled player a challenge fairly often.

I liken Starcraft to chess. Its simple enough that even a 8 year old can get good which means I could play it with almost anyone and still get some kind of entertainment. Granted a lot of people stink forthright, but good games happened consistently enough to keep me interested. No other RTS in history has had as good of a staying power than SC and it is not just because it is a Blizzard product. Remember SC really made Blizzard what it is. WC2 was fun, but SC's popularity moved them to the next level... although once again... I despise all their other games. WC3 is ok at best but not as a RTS really. Not to me at least.

it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.fireandcloud

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.TrailorParkBoy

yeah, never played total annihilation. just one of those games i forgot to check out back in the day. but i would think starcraft stands on its own merit, regardless of how great ta was. just my guess based on how much i personally enjoyed playing it.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.TrailorParkBoy

ta has a very different style of gameplay as well..the pacing is way different etc.. 

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.fireandcloud

yeah, never played total annihilation. just one of those games i forgot to check out back in the day. but i would think starcraft stands on its own merit, regardless of how great ta was. just my guess based on how much i personally enjoyed playing it.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.TrailorParkBoy

yeah, never played total annihilation. just one of those games i forgot to check out back in the day. but i would think starcraft stands on its own merit, regardless of how great ta was. just my guess based on how much i personally enjoyed playing it.

yeah, i see your point. but starcraft does deserve all the praise it received then and still receives today, regardless of how good ta is. i guess i was too busy playing heroes of might and magic 2 at the time to check out ta. my loss, i'm sure.

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]it's definitely one of the best of all time, if not the best. it's tough comparing old games to new. all i know is when it came out, everyone loved it. when it became too popular, haters started coming out, thinking that they'd be original by dissing it. now blizzard has too many haters. the truth of the matter is that blizzard has made great games from day one, and it hasn't let up yet. i'm not a wow addict; nor do i still play starcraft or warcraft 3; actually, i prefer turn-based strategy games. but for an rts, for its time, starcraft was as good as they get.fireandcloud

yeah, never played total annihilation. just one of those games i forgot to check out back in the day. but i would think starcraft stands on its own merit, regardless of how great ta was. just my guess based on how much i personally enjoyed playing it.

yeah, i see your point. but starcraft does deserve all the praise it received then and still receives today, regardless of how good ta is. i guess i was too busy playing heroes of might and magic 2 at the time to check out ta. my loss, i'm sure.

[QUOTE="Cerza"]No it's not "the best RTS ever," despite what the horde of blizzards mindless drones would have you believe. It was the king of the hill back in the day though.weirjf

I'm not a mindless drone, and yes SC is the best RTS ever. get over yourself

  LOL, wtf do zoom and cover system have to do with being a great game?  Those are features, ohh wow right click on a sand bag your so gosu.  Wow how innovative, I mean even SC had terrain bonus and a simple cover system.  I mean CoH is so f'n innovative yet it has 1 friggin matchup and 1 map that people actually play in melee.  CoH = 1000 people playing online, DoW has 400, WC3 = 30,000(5 freaking years old)on USEast.  Yes, the squad system is also very good for newbs, omg I'm so skilled I only have to build one rax and click on a reinforcement button, instead of actually managing a base.  OMG, I don't even have to manage resources or peons I just right click like a newb and play like an assault fps map.  The only thing that has evolved over the past 10 years in RTS is to make newbs feel like they're good at RTS by eliminating resource and base management and actual control of units.
apanizo

You argue like a child in kindergarden. I only found one thing worth replying at, the rest looked like a 2nd grade essay gone bad

Either way, a zoom and cover system itself does not make or break a game, but it's not just a gimmick. It all adds depth to a game. You think the strategic zoom is why I play SupCom? No, not really, but the zoom alone works like a deterrent to play other RTS games. It's just not the same when you can't zoom all the way out and get a real overview of the battle. The real gameplay and rtStrategy is embedded in the game, but I thought that was a no-brainer.

That still does not change a fact that little things like a cover system, like a strategic zoom system adds depth to an RTS. And you know what? The genre desperately needs these things to move forward. If someone slapped a copy of a 1998 game with updated graphics in my head, I'd tell them to piss off.

Gimmicks are squad-based units versus single units. Things like that doesn't add anything to a game other than giving it a particular feel.

I wouldn't call the cover system an "advancement" of the RTS gerne, I call it a gimmick, or a general feature at best. It only applies to specific games, like CoH. C&C3 copied this feature, look how redundant it is in that game.Erlkoenig

Same as what I wrote above, but ofcourse it was redundant in C&C3. The game played like any C&C game. Same old, same old. Not worth my time when the year is 2007. Execution is king, and I'm not going to argue that a strategic zoom and a cover system can't be badly executed, because they can. They still present something deeper to the genre instead of just leaving it out. The question now is; What will be the next advancement in regards to RTSs?

[QUOTE="holyknight234"]

Starcraft: Mother of all RTS games. (Or Father)

I belive that Blizzard is the Father of RTS and Relic is Mother of RTS :)

Avitu666

Starcraft would be great-grandchild of all RTS games...the genre was already well settled when Blizzard came along with their Xerox to copy the accomplishments of other companies.

Starcraft was definitely the best RTS of 1998, that's for sure...but for me it's not the best (CoH is the best for me).

Of course, that's entirely subjective. There's no such thing as the best game, but there is such a thing as the most popular game, as someone pointed out in an earlier post...

Of course, some people will say "x million people can't be wrong". on that I can only refer them to January 30, 1933 to prove that x million people CAN be wrong ;-)

You forgot that x*2 million people disagreed.

I thought Total Annihilation was a ZILLION times better then SC.

This is to rpgsuperfan, and those of his ilk: World of Warcraft has the most players of any MMOG ever, but would you call it the best? There are MMORPGs that have arguably better gameplay, graphics, audio, and pretty much everything. So why does everyone play WoW? It's accessible, and addictive. That's how it is with Starcraft. The units are easy to identify and easy to manage. The game isn't rocket science- It's one of the simplest RTS games I've played. You build up as many units as possible as fast as possible. It's really easy to get into and offers some nice gratification for effective maneuvers. It's always cool to see a marine explode. The game also had some nice audio and a VERY respectable storyline, and the online browser was simple and clean. The gameplay, though, had as much depth as the kiddy pool at my local Y. So yes, Starcraft is the most POPULAR RTS of ALL TIME, just as Counter-Strike is the most popular FPS, and Final Fantasy is the most popular RPG, and WoW is... WoW. But numbers can lie. Those games are popular because ANYONE can get into them; It doesn't necessarily reflect a degree of quality on their part. Starcraft is the most popular RTS of all time. You're right about that. But whether it is the best or not remains under heated debate. I love Starcraft, but I think it can be too much of a rock-paper-scissors game. I like my RTS with a certain degree of tactics as well as strategy. It's easy to have a plan- But can you see that plan followed through? That's why games like Warcraft 3, Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander are so great. Starcraft isn't terrible- I dare call it great. But it is by no means the best. Kkrokotillianis

So you're saying accessibility is not a factor of quality? A less accessible game can be just as popular, but it needs to make up for it in other areas. A lesser "quality" game can be more accessible so more people can enjoy it, and a game is SUPPOSED to be made to be enjoyed, so does this not make it a better game? Anything any one person here says about the game is only a subjective opinion, if you want an objective answer, which game was the most successful? Starcraft. Period.

There's a big difference between favorite and best. I already said Warcraft 3 is my favorite, but Starcraft is still the best. Get over yourself.

And yes, WoW is the best MMO ever.  It's a shame the community sucks, but the game is good enough that people continue to play regardless.

[QUOTE="rpgsuperfan"] Starcraft is the Counter-Strike of RTSs, whether you like it or not. I personally enjoy WC3 and SupCom more, but I'm not so naive as to think my opinion is the only factor that makes a good game. Champy87

Har har har... What a flawed way of thinking. The Counter-Strike of RTSs? Listen up bud; Just because Britney sold a truckload of albums doesn't make her a particulary interesting artist. Try looking at the sales of videogames; Whats the top seller in UK at the moment? Spiderman 3. Does that mean Spiderman 3 is a good game? Hell no, it's mediocre at best.

Granted. Starcraft is a classic, and people still play it after 10 years, whereas people won't even know there had been a Spiderman game 10 years from now. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft now is horribly, horribly dated. Today, there are so many new concepts, and/or old concepts revitalized. The cover system in Company of Heroes, and strategic zoom in SupCom are just 2 examples. Starcraft has it's faction balance, and that's probably the only thing which makes it playable today; it's a fairly good platform for competitive play. But do NOT try to play this one as if it's the god of all RTS's. It doesn't have one chance against games like Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander. It just doesn't.

Edit: Various typos

Edit: As another poster wrote in this thread; It's not the best RTS ever. It's just a classic.

Britney hasn't sold the most albums. 

Top seller in UK at the moment.  

If it was horribly dated why would people still play it?

A new concept is not automatically better, and a single feature is only a fraction of the whole game.

If it doesn't have a chance against CoH or SupCom, why have they still not surpassed it in sales or concurrent players?  At there are far more gamers now than there were in Starcraft's time, so even if only half of them bought either of those games it would put them way ahead, but they haven't.

Please, take more time to think about your arguements, it's more fun knocking down walls than cardhouses. 

 

I thought Total Annihilation was a ZILLION times better then SC.

Netherscourge

It is. But try telling the far east that.

 I mean look at HALO, this game for may pc gamers to be a great FPS. Hype or Console gamers sabotage?

The same with starcraft its technically weaker than TA. Yet do the 6 million chinese and koreans agree? Mass hype. Music, Movies, and form of art goes the same way. Truth is you have ot look for greatness not accept whats given. That is why TA is better.  

 

Total Annihilation was half as good as SC.

Netherscourge

Fixed

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

 

I thought Total Annihilation was a ZILLION times better then SC.

ardylicious

It is. But try telling the far east that.

 I mean look at HALO, this game for may pc gamers to be a great FPS. Hype or Console gamers sabotage?

The same with starcraft its technically weaker than TA. Yet do the 6 million chinese and koreans agree? Mass hype. Music, Movies, and form of art goes the same way. Truth is you have ot look for greatness not accept whats given. That is why TA is better.  

I'm sorry, but TA just didn't offer as much as SC.  It isn't about hype, it's about what people find to be more fun.  I played TA for over a year, but I played SC for over 4 years.  Hype had nothing to do with how much more FUN I had with SC than TA.

Despite the fact that I do come back and make fun of those that think TA is better than SC, I do agree it is a matter of personal opinion.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

 

I thought Total Annihilation was a ZILLION times better then SC.

ardylicious

It is. But try telling the far east that.

I mean look at HALO, this game for may pc gamers to be a great FPS. Hype or Console gamers sabotage?

The same with starcraft its technically weaker than TA. Yet do the 6 million chinese and koreans agree? Mass hype. Music, Movies, and form of art goes the same way. Truth is you have ot look for greatness not accept whats given. That is why TA is better.

In English please? 

And if a game were to sell on hype alone people would quickly realize it sucks and stop playing it, but they still play SC.  However, how many TA games do you think are happening right now?

A lot of you are missing the point on what "best game of all time means". It does not mean that the game is the best at this given moment, and will never get old or be surpassed. It means, for its time, that the impact it made and the popularity it recieved is likely to nover be outdone by another future game. In order for a new game to beat a former "BGoAT" it can;t be just better, but proportionally better relative to the time period and its competition.

Company of heroes is better than starcraft, no **** same goes for supcom etc etc, BUT that does not mean that sc is not the best game of all time. But that is like saying Michael jordan is not the best basketball player of all time because at this given moment kobe or bron bron can beat him due to his older age.

Personally I liked TA along with starcraft, and see them as equals in terms greatness. They both did their thing well. Though the SC sales and popularity are above TA sadly, I loved cavedog ;(.

Britney hasn't sold the most albums. 

Top seller in UK at the moment.  

If it was horribly dated why would people still play it?

A new concept is not automatically better, and a single feature is only a fraction of the whole game.

If it doesn't have a chance against CoH or SupCom, why have they still not surpassed it in sales or concurrent players?  At there are far more gamers now than there were in Starcraft's time, so even if only half of them bought either of those games it would put them way ahead, but they haven't.

 

Please, take more time to think about your arguements, it's more fun knocking down walls than cardhouses. 

rpgsuperfan

Haha - Again irony strikes you. You're seriously telling me those half-assed one sentence paragraphs make up for a convincing argument? Surely, this must be in jest?

Whether or not Britney isn't number 1 on the charts anymore, or that Spiderman 3 is topping the sales at the moment does not change the fact that the aforementioned artist and game, both outsell other products of their genre (music and gaming respectively). Does Britney bring anything to music? Does Spiderman 3 bring anything good to gaming? Is Britney a talented artist? Is Spiderman 3 a good game?

Either way, the point I'm trying to make, but which you ultimately fail to comprehend is that sales or popularity doesn't equal quality. SC is lightyears beyond the examples I came up with, but that's besides the point.

___________________________

Zendric brings up some good points, but I respectfully disagree. Best game ever, or best game of all time implies that it's better than any game created from past to present. This can hardly be the case, and while SC is a fairly decent game it doesn't hold up to any of the newer games technically - If you choose to continue to play it, it's because of the setting or the nostalgia, because whether one likes it or not, there ARE games out here now which surpass the oldies.

Its a GREAT rts but not the BEST imo