StarCraft 2 vs. Command & Conquer

There are a lot of RTS games on the market. Two that offer good comparisons because of their similarities (and differences) are C&C and StarCraft. I have played the original Command and Conquer, I have played Tiberian Sun, the Firestorm expansion; I have played Red alert, and Red Alert 2. I am confident that I don't need to have played Tiberium Wars to know about the gameplay features recently discussed in this thread. All of them were available by Red Alert 2, and quite a lot of them were around in the first couple games. The differences between Tiberium Wars and StarCraft II are not to do with either of them being “modern RTSs” of any quality, but have everything to do with the style of the game itself.

For the most part, the Real-Time Strategy genre has been split a few different styles of play. On how you collect resources, how you manage units, and how you interact with the terrain and other players. Sets of game mechanics, interface choices. As it happens, StarCraft and Command & Conquer are on two different branches of the RTS tree.

Veterancy- There is noting new, or cutting-edge about veterancy. As you are well aware, even Blizzard has been known to use it, in WarCraft III. That StarCraft II does not have this feature in the main game (as it will be available in the editor) says noting about its competitiveness to other recent RTS games. It is a feature, like any other, and has been one that Blizzard has opted not to implement. As has been mentioned, your average StarCraft and StarCraft II match involves waves of units wiping each other off the map in an extremely violent manner. While veterancy certainly would reward a player that fights tooth-and-nail to keep their units alive, it has been deemed that it does not add enough to the game to merit the added complexity of having veterancy.

Know that, earlier on, forms of veterancy were actually tried, and scrapped. The Soul Hunter became stronger with every kill, but as it turned out, the way the unit played was both overpowered, and, simply, not fun. I am not saying that veterancy in other games can't be fun, or even that it can't be fun if applied well to StarCraft II, but as it happens, some of the best game developers in the world have attempted it, in the context of StarCraft II, and decided that it was a no-go.

Neutral Structure Garrison, Vehicle Garrison- I saw these in Red Alert 2. They worked. But to be honest, I don't see why the game having that feature makes it superior. It's just another game mechanic. I could note that Command and Conquer games have almost no melee units to speak of, but we would both agree that really is a non-issue. How units and attack, and how they defend does not determine a game's quality. What matters is how well it is done; how the player can manage it and how well it fits in with the rest of the game. The very closest StarCraft II comes to neutral structure garrisoning is the capture of neutral Observatories. Note that it is extremely possible for Blizzard to have players load units into an Observatory, but they don't, opting to have them place units next to them instead. Why? Because it's simpler, and you don't have to knock the structure down to disable the effect, and you don't have to scratch your head and wonder how exactly that Zergling was operating that sophisticated machinery in the first place. In StarCraft, there isn't the same clear-cut distinction between infantry and vehicles, things that can be loaded, and things that can be loaded into (and things that can be loaded and loaded into. It cuts out arbitrary rules, making for more streamlined gameplay. I'm not saying StarCraft is necessarily superior for this, but it definitely makes it easier to deal with in the scope of a fast-paced multiplayer match.

Deploying Infantry- I saw this as early as Tiberian Sun. Like structure garrison, it works, but like structure garrison, it is just another game mechanic. The closest thing you get to infantry deployment in StarCraft II is burrowing Banelings and using them as landmines- not very close. StarCraft II does have a number of larger units that do deploy, though. Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Vikings, Overseers, and Phase Prisms all have secondary modes that cause them to lose mobility and gain other abilities. None of the C&C games, as far as I am aware, feature mining structures that can fly, or transport workers. I don't hold this over them, because, like garrisoning, like infantry deployment, it's just another game mechanic, one they chose to use in StarCraft, and not in Command and Conquer.

Shoot-while-moving- It is extremely easy to implement independent firing and movement. Blizzard chose not to do this very, very early on, for the majority of units, in order to maintain “park and shoot” battles. The rationale being that is that it easier to understand what is going on when you can see what is happening. A unit is either attacking, or moving. It's like a built-in turn-based-strategy mechanic, one that forces players to decide between getting shots out, and maneuvering to a better position. But like veterancy, it is not as if Blizzard had dismissed the idea of units that move and shoot at the same time completely. The now-scrapped Cobra unit featured the ability to fire while moving. Like veterancy, this was tested, found not to be particularly engaging, and removed. Think of game mechanics like different building materials or plans for constructing a building. You can chose to build something with steel, concrete, wood, or likely a combination of all three. You chose the materials and plans that fit the project you are working on, each has its advantages and disadvantages, and it is how they interact with the rest of the house, the people that live in it, and the surrounding environment, decides if it was the “right” choice or not.

Deployable Abilities (Orca Sensor Pods)- This thing, from my understanding, is basically a hidden sensor/detector. What makes this kind of thing a feature of a modern RTS? StarCraft II has its own means of detection: Overseers, Spore Crawlers, Observers, Phase Cannons, Sensor Towers, Ghosts, Nomads, Scanner sweep, plus a number of abilities that do things like unveil cloaked units by depleting their energy or covering them in goo. Yes, the Sensor Pod is cool; no, it is not a necessary feature for a game to be great.

But I digress. What should really be discussed are abilities that can be deployed onto the terrain and other units. The original StarCraft had these: Spider Mines and Parasite are closest to the example you cite. In fact, the Spider Mine is also a detector... so maybe I should have left that entire last paragraph out, huh? A game made ten years ago has a deployable ability that not only detects, but pops out of the ground, chases its down its target, and explodes. That's pretty cool, too, don't you think? But, again, it's not the point. Both of these things are just combinations of game mechanics, ones that work for their respective games. (And as a final note on this topic: the Terran Nomad, at this point, deploys Auto Turrets and Spider Mines in StarCraft II, so yes, even by the standards employed by comparing StarCraft 2 to C&C, in this area, it does in fact qualify as a modern RTS....)

Support Powers- We're talking about those “cast it from the other side of the map and you can't do anything about it”-type abilities, right? While, yes, it is another one of those game mechanics a game can or cannot do without, this is one where I am strongly in favor of the way Blizzard does it with StarCraft. I like that you have to squeeze a Ghost into an enemy base to be able to drop a nuke, I like that it isn't a point-and-click matter to level entire armies and raze bases. While there is certainly strategy in the interplay between affording and defending the structures that enable those abilities, I much prefer the strategy involved in, not only affording the Ghost and nuke, but positioning it, and keeping it alive, even a the enemy sees the point on the map that is going to be hit. It's a bit like the difference between constructing a unit normally, and the Warp-In mechanic for the SC2 Protoss. Do I want to be rewarded for having a structure alive long enough to get this attack out, or do I want to be rewarded for getting the appropriate units in the right place, even though everyone wants them dead (on top of the structure requirement? I wanted to say, “the investment-return ratio, or the risk-reward ratio, is better” - but it isn't. It's just more fun, from my point of view.

A lot of members on this forum have tried to convey the idea of “gameplay.” It seems we've failed, for the most part. I can't blame them, really. Even people that study game design at an academic level can't pin down what the heck “gameplay” even is. But what er know, as players, is that each game has a feel to it. Some games are smooth, others are rough, some are simple, others are complex, some are shallow, others are deep. These things are brought about by their mechanics, certainly, but it next to impossible, without one actually experiencing it, to begin to show how all those interactions work to bring about such qualities.

I won't try. I've decided to show you instead, or try, that differences in mechanics, in features, in complexity, or number, do not, by themselves, amount to differences in quality. StarCraft and C&C are different pillars in the RTS genre. They have different feels, they appeal to different people. You've stated that you are very singly focused on preserving your units, that you don't like multiplayer. Fine, that only means that this particular pillar isn't the one for you. People have fun in different ways. It might mean that you may never be able to get “what the fuss is about,” but do know that our reasons for liking this game are just as real as your reasons for needing to complete games without losing any units.

 

I agree with you. Both series have changed the RTS scene and neither is vastly supeior to the other because they are both so different (If that was your point, some parts are confusing...).

This article appeared on the forum a few months ago kinda talking about the difference between Westwood and Blizzard's RTS's http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3167691. Its an interesting read for anyone who hasn't seen it.

 

Yeah the games have different gameplay styles but there is one thing C&C has that I wish all RTSs had.
The side bar that lets you order up new units from anywhere on the map without the need for hotkeys.

 

BirdofPrey, think how SC would've been with the side bar.. way easier to master.. The use of hotkeys is more difficult, but this is the best thing about SC.. you need practice to become really good.

Anyways, it's hard to compare these games, they both have very different gameplay and feeling. Even if it's not an old series, don't forget Warhammer40K - Dawn of War.. that game is sooo revolutionary and so fun. I think these 3 game series are the best in RTS history: SC, DoW, C&C. WC3 is good too, but i think those 3 are better(i like WC2 more than WC3.. oooww memories).

 

The best RTS games ever made:

1. Company of Heroes
2. Tiberium Wars, Kane's Wrath
3. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade
4. Earth Assault : Universe At War
5. Star Wars: Empire At War


I won't mention Starcraft because it is now visually and gameplayy so retarded that it made me sick when I revisited it, it's best to leave very old games in good memory.
Also it doesn't make sense to mention Starcraft just because it was once a long time ago the best RTS, that's logically retarded.

 

JackBlack... i think you need help mate.. )))

You use too much the word 'retarded'...

 

Battle of the RTS? please... it shouldn't even be a contest

Am I the only SC purist here? Correction SC gamer that has played every major RTS known to man as well...

All other RTS including modern ones can't even come close to touching StarCraft's sh1t

CnC 3 fun? Yeah for about an hour... Will you see a CnC game in eSports? Not from what I've seen and played. The gameplay, balance and fun of SC > any RTS, there are still more SC gamers then all other RTS communities combined.... nuff said

 

If Sc is retarded, then why the on earth are you even on this forum, which is all about SC1 & 2?!?! In my opinion, THAT sounds logically retarded.

 

When you argue with a troll, they win.

 

Yeah I don't understand him either...

The best explanation we have for him so far is that he's never played any of these games multiplayer.

 

That and he just wants attention. Why else would he be here and continue to belittle StarCraft. If he doesn't like it then why is he here?

 

I'm sorry to say, but I think i have changed my mind towards JackBlack. I actually think his a troll now.

He completely dodges my question on the multiplayer aspect of an RTS game at the, "Whats all the fuss about?" thread. Then he comes in here with this quote:

Gameplay retarded? I don't want to resend myself into personal attacks, but you are really crossing the line to make me flame you big time. All I can say is that your just a HUGE NOOB that doesn't play multiplayer games. I respect everyones opinion whether they like SC or not. But you are different. You completely dodge my argument about the multiplayer aspect of SC and other RTS games and keep repeating yourself about the gameplay when in reality, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO IDEA about RTS gameplay. Why are you arguing about the GAMEPLAY ELEMENT of SC when you don't even understand or WORSE, DON't PLAY multiplayer games. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever. On top of that, you kept dodging my points about the MULTIPLAYER ASPECT OF AN RTS. Maybe you can enlighten me and answer my question about your views on multiplayer aspect of an RTS instead of dodging my question? Oh yea, I forgot, you don't play any multiplayer games. So of course you are ignoring me.

 

At least it squeezed an awesome article out of 10Neon

 

The gap in intelligence, logic, and diplomacy between your post and the OP is so laughable I probably could have shot milk out of my ears (had I been drinking milk when I read your post).

Mutliplayer is important. SC is behind in the single player department because, yes, it's old as hell. But, when you have several incredibly popular multiplayer ladders for a 10 year old game (ex. ICCUP, KESPA), it's obviously doing something right. Also, there are likely over thirty sites dedicated to nothing but pro starcraft VOD's. Some examples of the ones I visit:

gomtv.net
fighterreplays.com
scforall.com
sc.rpls.info
tastelessgaming.com

 

I can't believe I've been so stupid! It just dawned to me.
All this talk about multiplayer being half the game and how all these sites exist and how Koreans play it!
It all makes sense now, Starcraft is RTS ARCADE! Confined within its own distinct category of instant gratification and lack of any progress enjoyment, of course that this then involves saying stuff like-"graphics doesn't matter", "animation doesn't matter", "new gameplay mechanics that have been developed since 10 years ago don't matter".

Wow, I feel so embarrassed for not seeing the obvious, sorry guys....

 

So wait, the game is retarded and horrible? Say that to the thousands of pro gamers....

 

You do of course realize that most of the mechanics in TW are from the first command and conquer.
yes new gameplay options are nice but RTSs aren't supposed to all be the same.

Each RTS should have different mechanics. if they had the same mechanics then why even bother plaing more than one since you already know what you'll get?

 

QFT

I guarantee everybody that plays the ladders is having fun, which is the only really important thing. Also, while the majority of great players are koreans, there are equally as many progamers from other regions.

Again, fun is the only thing that matters. Get it? Exit animations will not make me happier or enjoy the game more. If something like that was included, I'd probably say to myself, "oh, that's neat," then go on about my day without ever paying attention to it again. I happen to care a great deal about how much work goes into games graphically - and I REALLY like the graphics in SC2. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Do you not get a feel for the full breadth of what an opinion is and where its boundaries lie?

Is this getting through that thick skull of yours? Jesus butt****ing Christ.

If you happen to not enjoy Starcraft, then you do not belong here. It's that simple.

 

You do realize that you don't have to have a lot of gameplay mechanics in order to have a deep multiplayer game right?

Since we are talking about gameplay mechanics, I might as well enlighten you on another topic:

Balance between Macro + Micro:

Macro basically means how you manage your base and your resources. Many people (especially the pros), are complaining that Sc2 is going to noobify the game. Why? Because Blizzard is introducing mass build selecting and auto-rally to SC2. These 2 things would make the game a lot easier for the players to work on. You can set your Command Centre and rally point your SCV's to mine minerals. After that, all you have to do is just build workers and they are set. As for mass build selection, you can highlight all your barracks and say you want to build 5 marines and 2 Ghosts, from each rax, all you have to do is press the select all your Rax, hotkey for each units, M, M, M, M, M, G, G: and 5 marines and 2 ghosts will pop out for each rax.

In SC1, you can't auto rally your workers to minerals/gas. You also can't highlight all your barracks and do the mass build selection as what I have stated above. Those are called Macro. How fast you can rebuild your units, manage your resources, expand, upgrade your units, etc. The pros are especially good at this and is why they still want the same old SC1 engine. They don't want SC2 to become noobified. To be honest, if those 2 were implemented in SC2 with no other changes, the game would be much easier and the skill gap between pros and your casual gamers would be alot smaller.

So how does Blizzard fix this Macro issue? They are introducing a new gas mechanic. Although Blizzard hasn't finalized it yet, it is good to know that they are well aware of this macro issue and toying around with it. Blizzard is also introducing some abilities for the units as well as new mechanics. These new mechanics and abilities will force the players to micro their units during battle. What is micro you might ask? Well, micromanagement is the ability to maximize your units abilities in order to deal the most damage to enemies units while receiving the least fatality of your own. Units like the Stalkers blink, Marauders grenade that slows incoming units, Banelings, and warp-ins are some new abilities/mechanics that are introduced to raise the micro aspect of the game. So even though that SC2 might be taking a hit in terms of macro, Blizzard is making that up with the micro aspect of the game.

This is why SC offers so many strategies and skill. You have to be very good at macro, as well as micro. It is why the skill gap between a pro and a casual gamer is so large. Another reason why SC offers that no other RTS can deliver at the moment is 3 distinctive and balanced race. That is something that overshines any gameplay mechanics that Jackblack seems to be talking about the whole time. When a game is balanced, that means there isn't an overpowered race/unit. You have to mix your armies. You have to micro your units. You have to macro your economy. You have to outwit your opponent in order to achieve victory. You can't expect to mass 1 overpowered unit + attack move and expect to win the game since there is no overpowered unit. You can't expect to play an overpowered race and plow through your enemy since the game is balanced. You can't expect to waste time during battle and watch all the animations of units attacking/dying because while you are wasting time doing those, the enemy would be microing his unit + macroing another army.

By having 3 balanced and distinctive races, you can't expect to win by cheezing. On the other hand, if you have an imbalanced + poor distinctive races/factions, there is no strategy involved because everyone is just going to cheeze the imbalanced unit and choose the most imbalanced race/factions in order to achieve the victory. The cheezed strategy will be well known and before you know it, everyone will be doing that on every multiplayer games that you encounter.

So yes, SC1 having 3 balanced and distinctive races is why SC1 is still played competitively even though the game is 10 years old. And it is also the main reason why other RTS games have failed to achieve. Add in the fact that Blizzard (unlike other companies) supports their games by patching, and you are seeing why there are so many SC1/SC2 and Blizzard fans out there.

 

Jack just likes his games to look sexy. I think thats always a nice fringe benefit, but the gameplay is always the primary concern.