At this point it is fact that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
The Greatest RTS ever made
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You need an "other" option. I really can't decide between all the classics, so I'll go for Empire: Total War.
No Homeworld option makes me a sad panda
[QUOTE="dos4gw82"][QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]Confused. If you consider DoW2 a RTS, how can you not consider WiC a RTS? The Multiplayer Component of Dawn of War II is classified as RTS. All of WiC is classified as RTT. Seems like nitpicking, really. Why can't we just call it an RTS? What exactly about the word "strategy" means collecting resources and building bases? Isn't positioning your troops in a certain way and deciding when and how to use abilities strategy? If you call a game a RTT in a room of gamers, and you'll likely get a bunch of "wtf is that" looks. Call it a RTS, and people understand that it's probably a game where you control a variety of units on a battlefield in real time. They get a very general idea that you can then elaborate on. I get sick of hearing how this game isn't a true RPG or RTS or whatever, as if these terms have some kind of value attached to them that certain games are unworthy of holding. These terms are supposed to give us an idea of what the game is like, not force it into some exalted pigeonhole. There isn't such a thing as true rock and roll or true jazz....why do we insist on trying to do this with games?WiC = not RTS. Replace that with Homeworld, which I'd vote for.
Otherwise, Dawn of War II.
aliblabla2007
[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"][QUOTE="dos4gw82"] Confused. If you consider DoW2 a RTS, how can you not consider WiC a RTS? dos4gw82The Multiplayer Component of Dawn of War II is classified as RTS. All of WiC is classified as RTT. Seems like nitpicking, really. Why can't we just call it an RTS? What exactly about the word "strategy" means collecting resources and building bases? Isn't positioning your troops in a certain way and deciding when and how to use abilities strategy? If you call a game a RTT in a room of gamers, and you'll likely get a bunch of "wtf is that" looks. Call it a RTS, and people understand that it's probably a game where you control a variety of units on a battlefield in real time. They get a very general idea that you can then elaborate on. I get sick of hearing how this game isn't a true RPG or RTS or whatever, as if these terms have some kind of value attached to them that certain games are unworthy of holding. These terms are supposed to give us an idea of what the game is like, not force it into some exalted pigeonhole. There isn't such a thing as true rock and roll or true jazz....why do we insist on trying to do this with games? In theory, WiC would be considered as a RTS, but the gameplay is specifically focused on tactical play. WiC is indeed a RTT.
Seems like nitpicking, really. Why can't we just call it an RTS? What exactly about the word "strategy" means collecting resources and building bases? Isn't positioning your troops in a certain way and deciding when and how to use abilities strategy? If you call a game a RTT in a room of gamers, and you'll likely get a bunch of "wtf is that" looks. Call it a RTS, and people understand that it's probably a game where you control a variety of units on a battlefield in real time. They get a very general idea that you can then elaborate on. I get sick of hearing how this game isn't a true RPG or RTS or whatever, as if these terms have some kind of value attached to them that certain games are unworthy of holding. These terms are supposed to give us an idea of what the game is like, not force it into some exalted pigeonhole. There isn't such a thing as true rock and roll or true jazz....why do we insist on trying to do this with games? dos4gw82
Positioning your troops and using abilities is tactics.
Strategy basically means planning ahead a lot, and a strong focus on macromanagement. Most RTS games today are closer to RTT - small skirmishes, with little planning.
You find true strategy in a game like Rise of Nations, SOASE or Supreme Commander, where you plan the developement of your nation, the tech trees you follow, the way you expand your territory or design your armies, where you have various victory conditions etc. In WiC, CoH or DoW, you just have to take control of some important points/own the enemy. The strategy involved is mostly a joke, careful micromanagement is what is really required to win.
Or let's put it in another way: managing a 80x80 square km battlefield in Supreme Commander is NOT similar in any manner to managing a 500x500 meters battle in DoW.
The public is ignorant, that's why every game is labeled as an RTS. They don't think at what those letters mean, they just see that you hover over your units and call it RTS.
FixedAt this point it is opinion that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
OoSuperMarioO
But I'd love to hear some reason why you think Starcraft is the best RTS. I've never actually heard any besides "It's 10 years old and people still play it," which in all honestly isn't that great of an argument. People still eat cow tongue and have been since the beginning of time, that doesn't make it the best food on the planet...
Fixed[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]
At this point it is opinion that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
Swiftstrike5
But I'd love to hear some reason why you think Starcraft is the best RTS. I've never actually heard any besides "It's 10 years old and people still play it," which in all honestly isn't that great of an argument. People still eat cow tongue and have been since the beginning of time, that doesn't make it the best food on the planet...
The difference is cow tongue is not a very popular food anymore, while Starcraft is still one of the most popular online RTS games around. It's been able to hold it's longevity as well as it's popularity.
Now personally while I enjoyed the game, RTS games aren't really my thing...but i would have to be an idiot to not see that Blizzard obviously did something very right with that game.
[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]FixedMake another poll thread on this board or any Game site and the results will remain the same. Starcraft has broke ground into the RTS genre making it the definitive. It's literally a global dominant with E-Sport competitions still participant today. The only RTS I see that can potentially remunerate Starcraft will be Starcraft 2 if executed precisely.At this point it is opinion that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
Swiftstrike5
@ Baranga
WRONG
Strategy is essentially a plan.
Tactics are the act of carrying out that plan.
I.E. "We need to take the left hill first, then go for the center" that's a strategy
"Lets soften up that position with artillery first, then drop in paratroopers in the surrounding forest. Have the tanks roll in the same time that the paras land" those are tactics
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]Fixed[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]
At this point it is opinion that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
dnuggs40
But I'd love to hear some reason why you think Starcraft is the best RTS. I've never actually heard any besides "It's 10 years old and people still play it," which in all honestly isn't that great of an argument. People still eat cow tongue and have been since the beginning of time, that doesn't make it the best food on the planet...
The difference is cow tongue is not a very popular food anymore, while Starcraft is still one of the most popular online RTS games around. It's been able to hold it's longevity as well as it's popularity. I haven't seen any statistics so you'll excuse me if I go by what I remember of my short starcraft experience. I remember the few times I logged onto Starcraft there were maybe 7 or 8 people in chat on the US server. Only like 3 or 4 custom games going. I tried switching servers, but there wasn't much of a difference... I know I still play LAN games of Red Alert (since it came out free) and C&C Generals with friends, but that doesn't make those the best RTSs ever. I would hardly consider either of them even compare to modern RTS, but I still enjoy playing them. There strategy aspects are just null compared to some games I've played. I don't play total annihilation anymore, but I know that it can make or break a game by how you manage resources (and collect resources from destroyed units). It can make or break a game if you have the high ground, since the enemy can spot you. I can go on and on about Homeworld, TA and Total War, but I can't find anything like that in Starcraft. The only aspect I found rather cool/unique was the unit diversity.[QUOTE="krazyorange"]
This list is complete and utter failure. How could you possibly list DoW2 yet leave out the father of real-time strategy: Dune II? Not only that, the paternal unit of the modern RTS formula: Command & Conquer? Do you forget that Warcraft II came before Warcraft III and was unbelievable? Furthermore, you left out the first title to successfully incorporate elements of Civilization into RTS circles: Age of Empires. Company of Heroes and World in Conflict are nice and shiny and make big things go boom, but they hardly innovate the genre. They might be glittering examples of technology or the hottest sellers right now, but they are far from the greatest RTS's ever made. Shame on you.
Uncle_Uzi
WWWWOAH
Chill out fellah
Things you got wrong: 1. Old games are fun but it is foolish to suggest that they are actually better than modern games. Of course they laid foundations and such, but by today's standards they are... (flame shield *ON*) obsolete. I played WC2 and had a decent time, but even without playing WC3 I have the wisdom to know it was a better game than its predecessor. More people enjoyed it, it got better reviews, etc. They deserve acknowledgement and praise all the same, but they do not belong in a this race.
2. World In Conflict and Company of Heroes do too innovate the genre. Have you even played them?
A. WiC gets rid of base building and creates a Total War/Battlefield-esque style of gameplay, 100% unique to the genre.
B. CoH is without doubt the best WWII RTS available. It combines good base building elements and excellent combat elements for a great game that emphasizes battlefield tactics over "who's army is bigger", something that I have yet to see in an RTS of that sort.
The reason I still vote for WiC is that it consistently amazes me with it's application of excellent balance to realistic units. I'm a cold war buff, and it is just an instant nerd-gasm for me every time an AH-64 guts a T-80 with a Hellfire.
I dissagree, i own all the Warcraft games and imo Warcraft2 >>> Warcraft3. Warcraft3 was my least favorite personally.
FixedMake another poll thread on this board or any Game site and the results will remain the same. Starcraft has broke ground into the RTS genre making it the definitive. It's literally a global dominant with E-Sport competitions still participant today. The only RTS I see that can potentially remunerate Starcraft will be Starcraft 2 if executed precisely. How'd it break ground? I'm still looking for an answer besides "it's popular." CS 1.6 is popular, but I'd raise hell if someone argued that CS 1.6 is more "ground breaking" than FPSs like Crysis, System Shock 2, or Battlefield 2. Why Starcraft dominates E-sports? The older the game is; the more skilled the players are; the more entertaining the matches are (everyone also knows the game). It also factors in that the low system requirements make it accessible to everyone.[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]
At this point it is opinion that Starcraft is the best RTS on PC.
OoSuperMarioO
[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Make another poll thread on this board or any Game site and the results will remain the same. Starcraft has broke ground into the RTS genre making it the definitive. It's literally a global dominant with E-Sport competitions still participant today. The only RTS I see that can potentially remunerate Starcraft will be Starcraft 2 if executed precisely. How'd it break ground? I'm still looking for an answer besides "it's popular." CS 1.6 is popular, but I'd raise hell if someone argued that CS 1.6 is more "ground breaking" than FPSs like Crysis, System Shock 2, or Battlefield 2. The older the game is; the more skilled the players are; the more entertaining the matches are. It also factors in that the low system requirements make it accessible to everyone.Honestly not in the mood to participate the same old tired argument. It's simply your mislay if you believe Starcraft is not the best RTS on PC bud. There are certainly miraculous RTS on the PC platform, but Starcraft is without a doubt the forefront of the genre.[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"] FixedSwiftstrike5
How'd it break ground? I'm still looking for an answer besides "it's popular." CS 1.6 is popular, but I'd raise hell if someone argued that CS 1.6 is more "ground breaking" than FPSs like Crysis, System Shock 2, or Battlefield 2. The older the game is; the more skilled the players are; the more entertaining the matches are. It also factors in that the low system requirements make it accessible to everyone.Honestly not in the mood to participate the same old tired argument. It's simply your mislay if you believe Starcraft is not the best RTS on PC bud. There are certainly miraculous RTS on the PC platform, but Starcraft is without a doubt the forefront of the genre.[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Make another poll thread on this board or any Game site and the results will remain the same. Starcraft has broke ground into the RTS genre making it the definitive. It's literally a global dominant with E-Sport competitions still participant today. The only RTS I see that can potentially remunerate Starcraft will be Starcraft 2 if executed precisely.
OoSuperMarioO
I'm not trying to argue with you and I promise I won't agrue. I just want you to give me another reason. I've seriously, never heard one besides "It's popular after 10 years." (Even though my limited experience showed me otherwise)
Although, I have to admit. I am frustrated that you'd consider Starcraft as factually the best game without giving any hard evidence. Everything here is an opinion, but you strive to take Starcraft higher without a ladder to climb on.
Basically, you are saying "This #2 Burger is the best!" and I'm asking "Why?" You're saying "Because everyone here is eating it!" Again... I ask "Why would everyone here want to eat it? Why is it so good?"
Honestly not in the mood to participate the same old tired argument. It's simply your mislay if you believe Starcraft is not the best RTS on PC bud. There are certainly miraculous RTS on the PC platform, but Starcraft is without a doubt the forefront of the genre.[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"] How'd it break ground? I'm still looking for an answer besides "it's popular." CS 1.6 is popular, but I'd raise hell if someone argued that CS 1.6 is more "ground breaking" than FPSs like Crysis, System Shock 2, or Battlefield 2. The older the game is; the more skilled the players are; the more entertaining the matches are. It also factors in that the low system requirements make it accessible to everyone.Swiftstrike5
I'm not trying to argue with you and I promise I won't agrue. I just want you to give me another reason. I've seriously, never heard one besides "It's popular after 10 years." (Even though my limited experience showed me otherwise)
Although, I have to admit. I am frustrated that you'd consider Starcraft as factually the best game without giving any hard evidence. Everything here is an opinion, but you strive to take Starcraft higher without a ladder to climb on.
Basically, you are saying "This #2 Burger is the best!" and I'm asking "Why?" You're saying "Because everyone here is eating it!" Again... I ask "Why would everyone here want to eat it? Why is it so good?"
[QUOTE="krazyorange"]
This list is complete and utter failure. How could you possibly list DoW2 yet leave out the father of real-time strategy: Dune II? Not only that, the paternal unit of the modern RTS formula: Command & Conquer? Do you forget that Warcraft II came before Warcraft III and was unbelievable? Furthermore, you left out the first title to successfully incorporate elements of Civilization into RTS circles: Age of Empires. Company of Heroes and World in Conflict are nice and shiny and make big things go boom, but they hardly innovate the genre. They might be glittering examples of technology or the hottest sellers right now, but they are far from the greatest RTS's ever made. Shame on you.
Uncle_Uzi
WWWWOAH
Chill out fellah
Things you got wrong: 1. Old games are fun but it is foolish to suggest that they are actually better than modern games. Of course they laid foundations and such, but by today's standards they are... (flame shield *ON*) obsolete. I played WC2 and had a decent time, but even without playing WC3 I have the wisdom to know it was a better game than its predecessor. More people enjoyed it, it got better reviews, etc. They deserve acknowledgement and praise all the same, but they do not belong in a this race.
2. World In Conflict and Company of Heroes do too innovate the genre. Have you even played them?
A. WiC gets rid of base building and creates a Total War/Battlefield-esque style of gameplay, 100% unique to the genre.
B. CoH is without doubt the best WWII RTS available. It combines good base building elements and excellent combat elements for a great game that emphasizes battlefield tactics over "who's army is bigger", something that I have yet to see in an RTS of that sort.
The reason I still vote for WiC is that it consistently amazes me with it's application of excellent balance to realistic units. I'm a cold war buff, and it is just an instant nerd-gasm for me every time an AH-64 guts a T-80 with a Hellfire.
1. So following this same logic, we could assume that the work of Leonardo da Vinci or Copernicus is completely obsolete because it doesn't match up with modern scientific reasoning? Could we also assume the works of Shakespeare are irrelevant because they don't have the cultural intrigue of contemporary plays? Your logic is moronic at best good sir. As for your claim that Warcraft 3 got better reviews than its predecessor, think again (and maybe do some research next time). In case you don't entirely believe me (I wouldn't if my intelligence quotient was in the same range as a tree limb), I've provided the links. You'll note PC Gamer scored Warcraft 2 96% and Warcraft 3 a 94%. Simple math: 96 > 94. Aggregate scores are also higher for Warcraft 2.
2. I have played both. What are these innovations you speak of? Destructible environments have been around since Myth, and probably before that. Even Red Faction (although an FPS) possessed this "innovation" five years previous. A cover system? Sorry, that's been done for years -even in Relic's own Dawn of War. Shiny graphics? Hardly innovative.
A. 100% unique. Really? So that means you've never played Ground Control, which is virtually the same concept and...oh right, was released in 2000. Homeworld also features a lack of base construction, coming out in 1999. Another of your claims which is completely untrue.
B. An emphasis on battle tactics being completely revolutionized by a game in 2006? I'm not even going to develop some sort of argument or statement against this since its very nature is so completely devoid of any intelligence -it would almost be insulting myself to reply.
It's not that I take issue with your poll....had you listed it "the Greatest Contemporary RTS ever made." The fact you assume simply because something is spiffy or contains more-polished features it is a better or "greater" game simply proves that you need to expand your gaming horizons. Look, I've even provided you a link. Search by date, find some of the older games I've mentioned, pull out your credit card, wait, and play the games before you insist newer is better.
PS: Next time do some research and don't make ridiculous claims.
[QUOTE="Uncle_Uzi"]
[QUOTE="krazyorange"]
This list is complete and utter failure. How could you possibly list DoW2 yet leave out the father of real-time strategy: Dune II? Not only that, the paternal unit of the modern RTS formula: Command & Conquer? Do you forget that Warcraft II came before Warcraft III and was unbelievable? Furthermore, you left out the first title to successfully incorporate elements of Civilization into RTS circles: Age of Empires. Company of Heroes and World in Conflict are nice and shiny and make big things go boom, but they hardly innovate the genre. They might be glittering examples of technology or the hottest sellers right now, but they are far from the greatest RTS's ever made. Shame on you.
krazyorange
WWWWOAH
Chill out fellah
Things you got wrong: 1. Old games are fun but it is foolish to suggest that they are actually better than modern games. Of course they laid foundations and such, but by today's standards they are... (flame shield *ON*) obsolete. I played WC2 and had a decent time, but even without playing WC3 I have the wisdom to know it was a better game than its predecessor. More people enjoyed it, it got better reviews, etc. They deserve acknowledgement and praise all the same, but they do not belong in a this race.
2. World In Conflict and Company of Heroes do too innovate the genre. Have you even played them?
A. WiC gets rid of base building and creates a Total War/Battlefield-esque style of gameplay, 100% unique to the genre.
B. CoH is without doubt the best WWII RTS available. It combines good base building elements and excellent combat elements for a great game that emphasizes battlefield tactics over "who's army is bigger", something that I have yet to see in an RTS of that sort.
The reason I still vote for WiC is that it consistently amazes me with it's application of excellent balance to realistic units. I'm a cold war buff, and it is just an instant nerd-gasm for me every time an AH-64 guts a T-80 with a Hellfire.
1. So following this same logic, we could assume that the work of Leonardo da Vinci or Copernicus is completely obsolete because it doesn't match up with modern scientific reasoning? Could we also assume the works of Shakespeare are irrelevant because they don't have the cultural intrigue of contemporary plays? Your logic is moronic at best good sir. As for your claim that Warcraft 3 got better reviews than its predecessor, think again (and maybe do some research next time). In case you don't entirely believe me (I wouldn't if my intelligence quotient was in the same range as a tree limb), I've provided the links. You'll note PC Gamer scored Warcraft 2 96% and Warcraft 3 a 94%. Simple math: 96 > 94. Aggregate scores are also higher for Warcraft 2.
2. I have played both. What are these innovations you speak of? Destructible environments have been around since Myth, and probably before that. Even Red Faction (although an FPS) possessed this "innovation" five years previous. A cover system? Sorry, that's been done for years -even in Relic's own Dawn of War. Shiny graphics? Hardly innovative.
A. 100% unique. Really? So that means you've never played Ground Control, which is virtually the same concept and...oh right, was released in 2000. Homeworld also features a lack of base construction, coming out in 1999. Another of your claims which is completely untrue.
B. An emphasis on battle tactics being completely revolutionized by a game in 2006? I'm not even going to develop some sort of argument or statement against this since its very nature is so completely devoid of any intelligence -it would almost be insulting myself to reply.
It's not that I take issue with your poll....had you listed it "the Greatest Contemporary RTS ever made." The fact you assume simply because something is spiffy or contains more-polished features it is a better or "greater" game simply proves that you need to expand your gaming horizons. Look, I've even provided you a link. Search by date, find some of the older games I've mentioned, pull out your credit card, wait, and play the games before you insist newer is better.
PS: Next time do some research and don't make ridiculous claims.
By this logic, Dune 2 was better because it doesn't have multiple selection.
Standards change with the time.
Honestly not in the mood to participate the same old tired argument. It's simply your mislay if you believe Starcraft is not the best RTS on PC bud. There are certainly miraculous RTS on the PC platform, but Starcraft is without a doubt the forefront of the genre.[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"] How'd it break ground? I'm still looking for an answer besides "it's popular." CS 1.6 is popular, but I'd raise hell if someone argued that CS 1.6 is more "ground breaking" than FPSs like Crysis, System Shock 2, or Battlefield 2. The older the game is; the more skilled the players are; the more entertaining the matches are. It also factors in that the low system requirements make it accessible to everyone.Swiftstrike5
I'm not trying to argue with you and I promise I won't agrue. I just want you to give me another reason. I've seriously, never heard one besides "It's popular after 10 years." (Even though my limited experience showed me otherwise)
Although, I have to admit. I am frustrated that you'd consider Starcraft as factually the best game without giving any hard evidence. Everything here is an opinion, but you strive to take Starcraft higher without a ladder to climb on.
Basically, you are saying "This #2 Burger is the best!" and I'm asking "Why?" You're saying "Because everyone here is eating it!" Again... I ask "Why would everyone here want to eat it? Why is it so good?"
My vote goes to World in Conflict.
eh!?Wheres red alert??Alpen09Shhhhhh! Gamespot forums are full of EA haters. Don't mention the name of the game.... you'll get flamed.
[QUOTE="Alpen09"]eh!?Wheres red alert??arijit_2404Shhhhhh! Gamespot forums are full of EA haters. Don't mention the name of the game.... you'll get flamed. Nah, C&C was awesome until EA bought out Westwood.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment