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.

  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?

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.