Glad itâs good then. Probably more in a fan service way than anything else though. I thought you were too broke to get it though. Found a good deal somewhere?
Borrowing a friendâs copy but I think Iâll stop until I can just afford it. Iâll distract myself with WoW arena in the meantime.
Starcraft got mediocre ratings? Wow - as a Warcraft 2 fan I was pretty hyped when it came out and instantly loved it.
Dey see ya rollinâ, dey hatinââŚ
I think the âmediocre-nessâ of SC1âs ratings are a bit exaggerated. At worst, it was in the high 80s. According to Gamerankings, though, it averaged 93%, and Broodwar got 95%. Iâd say those are pretty damn high.
I remember those days well. The net wasnât the media powerhouse it is now, and Command & Conquer Red Alert was more popular online than Warcraft 2. I think SC owes 80% of its success to South Korea who turned Blizz games into a national sport.
My point is to say that, its vast success was a bit serendipitous.
[quote=âGeoffrey Dukeâ]I remember those days well. The net wasnât the media powerhouse it is now, and Command & Conquer Red Alert was more popular online than Warcraft 2. I think SC owes 80% of its success to South Korea who turned Blizz games into a national sport.
My point is to say that, its vast success was a bit serendipitous.[/quote]
âŚexcept for the fact that Starcraft outsold C&C: Red Alert in every region. Hell, SC sales figures for the Americas alone beat Red Alertâs worldwide sales. According to wikipedia, the game sold 1.5 million units in its first year. Thatâs a huge success by any means. Yes, Korea ended up making up about half of the sales over the lifetime of the product, but there is no indication that Korea drove the sales for the rest of the world (considering that the Korean market is super insular and that it shares almost no commonalities with the rest of the global market in terms of what sells and what doesnât.) In addition, WC2 also outsold C&C:RA. I donât know what the online usage percentages were like (particularly considering that popular usage of the internet was still extremely new in 95 - hell, most people didnât even have email yet), but even if C&C was played more online, more people played WC2 in general.
Unfortunately I donât have access to NPD PC sales data any more, but here is the VGChartz page that shows the same:
WC2:
vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php ⌠sort=Total
Red Alert:
vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php ⌠ed%20alert
Starcraft:
vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php ⌠sort=Total
(And yes, itâs vgchartz, so take it with a grain of salt.)
C&C was a huge competitor to Blizzardâs RTSes, but Blizzard has pretty much always been the top seller.
Iâd put C&C3 on par with WC3, but C&C4 was just a damned rush job. I see it in bargain bins already. I wonder where theyâll go next with it now that they finished the story they started there.
I know you are of the mindset that success can just be created if tailor made properly, but you also have to factor in accidental success as well.
Tiberium Sun sold 3 million. It was way more anticipated than SC at the time by RTS gamers, and I remember. Shame it was mediocre apart from the story mode.
Blizz have a huge fanbase, and I am a part of it. I just think SCâs online mode is more tailored for competitive gamers especially those in Korea.
I just donât get the childish rivalry between games sometimes. WC2 wasnât anywhere near as good as even the original C&C as far as overall selling points go, but the whole modern warfare and medieval knight themes are big money here.
Do you want to make a bet on what theme would be more popular in Europe and the states between Warcraft and SC? I lean towards WC more. WoW has a broader appeal than a world of Starcraft MMO would have IMO.
I could be wrong of course.
Not quite accurate, actually. I think there are many things you can do to put yourself in a position to be successful, but there is also a lot of luck involved, of course. If it werenât possible to manage to success, companies like Pixar and Blizzard wouldnât have the track records that they do.
Except that Starcraft is sort of what really kick started competitive gaming to that extent in Korea. Itâs a bit of a chicken and egg issue, really. The Koreans did, however, take it to extremes, but again, itâs sold better than the vast majority of any game in the West as well. If Korean gaming habits had that much influence over the rest of the gaming world, why isnât micro-transaction-based online gaming more popular outside of Asia? Or why didnât Lineage do that well?
[quote=âGeoffrey Dukeâ]I just donât get the childish rivalry between games sometimes. WC2 wasnât anywhere near as good as even the original C&C as far as overall selling points go, but the whole modern warfare and medieval knight themes are big money here.
Do you want to make a bet on what theme would be more popular in Europe and the states between Warcraft and SC? I lean towards WC more. WoW has a broader appeal than a world of Starcraft MMO would have IMO.
I could be wrong of course.[/quote]
No rivalry arguing here. Just saying that arguing C&C was a bigger game than WC2 and SC was only popular because of Korea is a bit, well, off. C&C was the biggest competitor to the ~craft series by far, no doubt. However, it has been living in Blizzardâs shadow, sales-wise, ever since WC2.
And to be honest, I think both medieval and sci-fi settings are just as viable settings. The problem with using an MMO as an example, though, is that people would expect guns, which means that you would need much more twitch-based gameplay (which is inherently difficult to do in an MMO setting). In fact, I can think of a lot more best-selling recent sci-fi games than I can fantasy games (and C&C wasnât really modern warfare - thatâs sci-fi, as well).
C&C was semi-realistic and plausible which is why it had more appeal, plus the soundtrack and story were just, the best you could ever expect. It didnât continue into the following games as well which went into the sci fi and comical realms far more. Brett Sperry originally wanted the Nazis as a playable side but Virgin outright rejected that idea. It could have been more serious⌠Thatâs untapped potential there imo.
I honestly think that competitive gaming is just bigger in Korea than even the states for the Craft games. I donât think Blizz expected WoW to be so successful either even though WC3 was so huge by itself thanks to the medieval theme.
C&C has kind of been diluted by the whole yearly EA updates as expected, but at least they finally got to finish C&C3 which got put on hold for way too long. Seriously, play C&C3 and compare it to everything that came after Tiberian Sun, and you will see the difference in the passion poured into it.
IMO, if it wasnât for competitive gamers like in Korea (you canât deny that SC/WC3 have been huge there online), the market would be completely casual-afied. Where Lineage was too grindy WoW is more universal although there are competitive elements if thatâs your scene.
Gamers have kind of become a counterweight to stop things tipping too far.
Good point. It has definitely gone way more into sci-fi than where it started. I think Company of Heroes had the potential to really take over that setting in the market, but despite the amazing reviews, it didnât really catch fire. It was probably bad luck with release timing (thereâs that luck again). Released earlier, it would have still been in the heyday of PC gaming. Released later, it would have been considered a breath of fresh air. As it was, there was a lot of negative feeling towards PC gaming at the time, plus the market was already full of WW2 games (albeit they were all FPS games). Quit unfortunate, really.
Again, I donât disagree that competitive gaming is bigger in South Korea, but itâs a chicken and egg situation. Would competitive gaming have been as big without SC and WC? Or were SC and WC big because people wanted a good competitive game? Hard to say and there is very little literature on the subject. Itâs hard to say if the market would have become casualified, too, simply because RTS games are hardly played by casual gamers to begin with. And Blizzard showed with Diablo that they were all about the core market.
(As for WC being so successful thanks to its medieval/fantasy theme, remember - SC still outsold WC outside of Korea, despite their themes. And again, sci-fi continues to dominate just about every other genre out there. Fantasy is still a solid setting, but Iâm not so sure that it beats out sci-fi in terms of popularity. Now, Iâve heard from my European counterparts that sci-fi isnât quite as âcoolâ in the UK as it is elsewhere, so it could be a cultural difference in perspective, but since we are discussing sheer popularity, I think the sales figures speak for themselves. But you are right - Blizzard did not expect WOW to be anywhere nearly as big as it was. I donât know if the setting had anything to do with it, though. Fantasy does work better for MMO settings, sure, but Iâm curious to see what a World of Starcraft would potentially do, sales-wise.)
Anarchy Online still exists (no less than nine years after the release) and Star Wars Galaxies didnât have a bad start until SOE decided to âenhanceâ the game, so I donât see a reason why World of Starcraft wouldnât work.
On a side note, is anyone here actually playing SC2 online at the moment? Iâve played some âpractice leagueâ matches but even there the level of my opponents is higher than I expected. Itâs Starcraft after all, but I think a lot of newcomers are going to be discouraged after trying the multiplayer.
In a way I think it would have been better if the game actually had some more significant changes to the gameplay so that everyone actually had to learn the game again. Thatâs one of the reasons Iâm looking forward to Guild Wars 2 for example, the PvP component of the original had amazing potential but the game lost its focus with the expansions. With the sequel the core gameplay seems to change considerably, which means the developers are (again) taking a lot of risks but itâs good to see someone actually trying to move things forward.
absolutely NOTTT and i say this as a huge C&C fan.
In terms of online play, the game that had the most following from the C&C series was Red Alert 2. In my opinion I found Tiberian Sun as a better game, but RA2 had the online following (probably more to do with the timing of the game coming out with internet availability).
Anyways, RA2 and WC3 were big around the same time. I was an RA2 addict at the time, playing on the US servers in organised games with a bunch of top ranked players (ahh memories). I didnât really care much for W3 because I couldnât see why i would bother if i had RA2.
But i began playing WC3 properly over the last three years, and the game is immense. (this is from a multiplayer gameplay perspective). Itâs a beast. No wonder people still play competitively now. In my eyes none of the C&C games after RA2 have had that gripping effect on me (or the community it seems).
Starcraft 2 is the new thing now, and i want to play. I know it will be a huge hit and is exactly what the RTS community needed. But i really shouldnât invest the time into it no matter how much i want to =( =(
Iâm playing the practice league too. Got qualified for bronze 2 vs 2, but my teammate is a bit lazy to play. I played two 1 vs 1 matches and won both⌠but then, itâs the practice league, there are a lot of newcomers there, myself included.
Havenât finished the campaign yet, been playing a lot of custom games vs. AI or other players. We usually get steamrolled, though.
I donât find myself discouraged. Everytime I manage to beat a certain strategy I feel like a god, haha.
As a side note, playing SC2 has reminded me why I stopped playing PC games in general.
Installation at home:
- Took FOREVER to install.
- After it installed, took another 5 minutes to download and install all the patches.
- After booted, I opened up the options menu to adjust visual settings⌠and it wonât let me exit the menu. I have to log out and log back in.
- Resolution is stuck at 1280x720. Granted it is a laptop, but itâs a pretty high end one. Might be a driver issue. Will need to investigate later⌠again, something you donât need to worry about on a console game.
Installation at work the following day:
- Again, took FOREVER to install.
- Again, patches patches patches.
- Same menu issue.
- After loading up a quick AI match, game hard crashes my computer, making me lose all kinds of work (we use Lotus Notes, which doesnât unfortunately autosave email drafts).
- Updated drivers using device manager. Menu issue is fixed. Played game again, crashed in the exact same place. (This is after 2 reboots - one for the crash, one for the driver).
- Reboot again, grab latest driver from Nvidia site. Install, reboot. Got a little further in the game, but nope! Crash again.
(Note: This is a quad core, 8GB RAM with a fairly good videocard.)
sigh From what I was able to play at home, the game is fun. But I really, really hate having to trouble shoot a game just so I can play it.
Ideally, someone would design a sort of console/PC hybrid, taking the best features of both worlds. A system with a minimalistic operating system (no overhead) as on a console, but with the ability to import mods, change the resolution, use a keyboard and mouse with FPS/RTS/MMORPG, and upgrade the system incrementally. There could be differing configurations, so that hardcore gamers could upgrade their box each year, but not dozens and dozens of configurations. Games could be written to a framework (a programming layer between the OS and game) with a clear specification , so that all games could be backwardly compatible with a new system down the road by reimplementing the framework rather than using emulation or similar hardware.
I doubt it would ever happen, but I can dream. :anjou_embarassed:
[quote=âSoloâ]Ideally, someone would design a sort of console/PC hybrid, taking the best features of both worlds. A system with a minimalistic operating system (no overhead) as on a console, but with the ability to import mods, change the resolution, use a keyboard and mouse with FPS/RTS/MMORPG, and upgrade the system incrementally. There could be differing configurations, so that hardcore gamers could upgrade their box each year, but not dozens and dozens of configurations. Games could be written to a framework (a programming layer between the OS and game) with a clear specification , so that all games could be backwardly compatible with a new system down the road by reimplementing the framework rather than using emulation or similar hardware.
I doubt it would ever happen, but I can dream. :anjou_embarassed:[/quote]
And after 5 years of releasing all sorts of yearly upgrades to various parts of the box, youâre dangerously close to where you are now with PCs.
With a set hardware configuration (even ignoring how much more beneficial it is to development for a second), as an end user, I no longer have to worry about whether or not my settings are optimal, etc. Even if every piece of hardware that is released is signed off by first party, that assumes that every developer will build their games perfectly for the many, many potential configurations. I honestly donât want to open that can of worms.
While the tech is still a ways off, something along the lines of OnLive that pretty much completely removes hardware from the equation seems like a big deal.
If the games were written for a framework, developers wouldnât need to write them for a particular piece of hardware. So long as each hardware configuration implemented the framework in the same way. Sort of like how you can open the same webpage in IE/Firefox/Safari/Opera/Chrome and it will look the same on each (or does if the browser maker implements the standards correctly).
I guess this is sort of what OnLive is doing, but you could create games written for one framework that ran on different local hardware configurations as well. I donât know too much about it, but XNA, for example, uses Microsoftâs .NET framework to run games on both the 360 and PC without specific code for each.
[quote=âSoloâ]If the games were written for a framework, developers wouldnât need to write them for a particular piece of hardware. So long as each hardware configuration implemented the framework in the same way. Sort of like how you can open the same webpage in IE/Firefox/Safari/Opera/Chrome and it will look the same on each (or does if the browser maker implements the standards correctly).
I guess this is sort of what OnLive is doing, but you could create games written for one framework that ran on different local hardware configurations as well. I donât know too much about it, but XNA, for example, uses Microsoftâs .NET framework to run games on both the 360 and PC without specific code for each.[/quote]
Sure, you write to the kernel instead of the actual hardware - itâs what allows, for example, Microsoft to change out component parts in different versions of the hardware with each revision (like using different DVD drives, for example).
But that isnât the issue - itâs building your game so it scales with the hardware. For example, if players had the ability to add in more RAM, developers would have to build their games to be able to scale. But what if they also had a faster drive? What about 5 years down the road where multiple versions of each hardware upgrade exist? It just starts to compound after a point and you essentially end up with a PC.
(For OnLive, everything is done server-side, so you donât need to worry about hardware. Processor usage is minimal on the terminal end.)
Using a framework is a bit different from writing the kernel. Itâs essentially a programming layer between the kernel and the applicationâs code.
If something changes in the hardware or OS configuration, you alter the implementation of the framework; the application code remains untouched. Using the XNA example, Microsoft handles the implementation of the framework, so individual game developers wouldnât have to touch this. Just write your game for the framework and it will work on all subsequent versions of the framework (since each new revision of the framework is backwardly compatible by including the code for all the old revisions).
The main issue with using a framework is performance. Managed code usually runs slower than compiled code. But this might be something that could be improved if emphasis was put into optimising the framework for better performance.
I can definitely see the potential in OnLive, but Internet connections are typically so unreliable at the moment itâs hard to envision a world where you wouldnât need a powerful gaming machine on the client side. Maybe in ten to twenty years or so?
Ah, I see what you mean. That would make sense if you were simply just making a game for the bare minimum spec, but whatâs the point in the upgrades, then? One of the issues is making the game scalable (granted, you wonât necessarily have the compatibility issues right away, but that sort of thing can get out of control) in order to support the expanding configuration. Or, conversely, if you only build for the higher end specs, you then have the issue of having games that wonât run on certain configurations⌠and you end up with PC-like problems (thatâs one of the issues I have with the iPhone as a development platform/gaming platform - while they will sometimes outright tell you if an app wonât work on older phones, some of them claim to work, but feature horrible framerates or will eat through your battery in a matter of an hour.)
As for OnLive, Iâd say within 10 years. Given that 10 years ago, there were still people without dialup and given where we are now with broadband (and how quickly over-the-air speed are growing), itâs not entirely impossible that weâll see consistent high speed broadband either wired or wireless. Itâs already implemented in large portions of Asia - the rest of us just have to play catchup 