Article: Why StarCraft Owns Warcraft 3

By the way Jon, your news post is even more subjective than the article itself. You should make it clear that the article is about wc3 and sc from spectators' point of view and I don't see any mention of it.
I know it's a Starcraft forum, but still too much personal opinion is never good in general news.

 

I think I plainly stated that WC3 is an awesome game, and I've played it quite a bit... It just doesn't measure up to SC .

 

But you didn't state what is the article actually about. And that's sc is better than wc3 for a spectator
Not that sc isn't better in about any other way, just thought it was worth mentioning

 

I think this quote says it all. The point of the article (if this was not made clear before) is that Warcraft is not fun to watch. I have never watched WC and I only played SC, so I have no right to comment. But I always felt that having a Hero in a multiplayer type game with units and stuffs sounds really weird. I also dislike the fact you have to cut trees... lol ...

Graphically tho, WC is much more advanced, but we'll c what happens when SC2 comes out.
SC 1 stands out as a classic RTS game. I believe whenever people say "RTS".. they'll think of SC more than WC.
~Unholy

 

When I hear RTS, I think of Age of Empires.

Where's the strategy in four-minute armies?

 

I think both SC and WC3 are technically tactical games, not strategy

 

No they are not.

RTTs incolve no base building and focus soley on units and their effective placement and usage
Examples would be
World Conflic
Ground Control
Mech Commander

SC and WC are both RTSes since they require you to develop a strategy. Just because they are smaller scale doesnt make them less RTS.

 

Strategy games would be games like Civilizations, Europa Universalis, Galactic Civilizations and the like, where there is more things to think about and plan out such as diplomacy and economy. While SC and WC both feature these, they're very basic compared to real strategy games. SC and WC focus on battles, not wars, where as real strategy games focus on the broader events.

 

So you're saying that there is no strategy in the decision to make Stalkers instead of immortals?

While tactics are more prominent in Starcraft and Warcraft they are still strategy games and contain many strategic possibilities.

For reference you might wanna read the article I wrote on strategy and tactics

 

In the general sense of the word, strategy refers to an entire campaign, the big picture, whatever you want to call it. Strategy doesn't involve individual battles as most RTS's have. It involves much more general plans that affect entire campaign at hand, be it war or business (same thing really). Strategy is the art of conducting a war/campaign. Tactics on the other hand, are the direction of forces in battle. And by no stretch can you say that a game in SC is in any way a war. It's a battle, not a war. Tactics isn't waging a war, it's winning a battle. Strategy, not tactics, is waging war, and as a game in SC and WC are concentrated on individual battles, they're technically RTT's.

The decision to make Stalkers instead of Immortals has nothing to do with strategy. It's tactics. Like I said, the choice between Stalkers or Immortals isn't likely at all to change the outcome of a war. It could be compared to a Lieutenant debating if he should have his squad fortify their position or take a risk and go after the enemy. Strategy would be (taking in this example Iraq) the decision to send over 30000 more troops as well as supporting tribal and other civilian militias to help in their fight.

SC and WC have elements of strategy in them, but they're not justifiable to be called strategy.

 

In business strategy stands for long term plans (several years or more) while tactics are plans for about one year.
Decision to make immortals or stalkers isn't really strategy since it's by no means permanent or even long term - depending on the opponent's moves you can switch from one to another after one battle so it's short-term planning

 

and you can't make long term plans in Starcraft?

A turtle (defensive buildup) isnt a long term plan?

 

You can't make long term plans in Starcraft because a game isn't long term. It's a battle, not a war. 'Turtling' technically is a tactic, as it changes the outcome of a battle, not a war.

 

You havent read the article I pointed out yet have you

The one where I explain in detail strategy and tactics


Heres a good definition of strategy

A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed



Long term in this case means nothing more than just the majority of the match.

A strategy such as a rush or turtle are long term while different tactics like a pincer manuver are short term tactics that only last for the duration of a skirmish

 

I've read it, don't worry. The terms 'strategy' and 'tactics' you're using in the article refers specifically to RTS's, whereas I'm using them in their technical definitions. Technical definitions as in the way they're used by most people. In a more military sense of the word. Rushing, turtling, etc can't be considered 'strategies' by the non-gamer, as the nature of the game doesn't allow for real 'strategies'.

In contrast, you haven't read my posts, have you?

 

Yes I have. Your basic position is that SC and WC aren't stratecig games becaiuse they don't usually last longer than 20 minutes

By your definiton almost every RTS has no strategy involved

 

It's true, they don't. It's not the length of the game that matters, it's the scope of it. 99% of all RTS's I know should be called RTT's, as their very game design prevents them from being focused on strategy rather than tactics. The term RTS in general is a misnomer. I've already pointed out that my definitions of strategies and tactics are the dictionary/military ones. They differ significantly from strategy and tactics as used in gaming.

Here's a definition of strategy:

Tactics:

Strategy is the planning of war. That not only includes military might, but also diplomacy and economy. Like I said above, strategy, as military and business personnel would know, is in most cases impossible in the typical RTS, as they only involve battles, not wars. An example of a strategy game would be Civilizations. Instead of being a single battle being played out, wars are being fought. It's played out in a series of connected, interrelated battles as well as diplomatic, economic, and domestic events, not as in SC, WC, or just about any RTS I could name.

RTS = misnomer

RTT = correct, but no one's going to use it anyways because we've gotten used to RTS and it'll something huge to change that.

 

All of those games you are using as examples are classified as 4x games BTW

 

I know they're classified as 4X games. The reason I'm using them as examples is because 4X games are the only games that allow for strategy.

 

Is the designation really all that important so long as its fairly standardised?