Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

StarCraft: The past, present and future

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#21

Post by rasz_pl »

steckerbrett wrote: post #2

It's unfortunate how much the original game has rotted, the online servers are up but the program itself is becoming more are more unplayable. The OSX versions have been dead for a long time, on windows it seems to be getting harder and harder to run as well. The recent job posting hopefully indicate they're interested in de-breaking them, couldn't care less for a HD remake, just a version that actually works again.…

someone could dissasemble it again http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/15820-starcraft/

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#22

Post by catshirt »

terda12 wrote: post #4
steckerbrett wrote: post #2

It's unfortunate how much the original game has rotted, the online servers are up but the program itself is becoming more are more unplayable. The OSX versions have been dead for a long time, on windows it seems to be getting harder and harder to run as well. The recent job posting hopefully indicate they're interested in de-breaking them, couldn't care less for a HD remake, just a version that actually works again.…

IMO, the game works great on Windows. I can't imagine playing games like SC2 or CSGO on OSX. It's just not economical for Blizzard to do an OSX port. The game has been kinda dead for a while now, because it's so unaccessible to the general population. Games like Dota and League of Legends have taken the place of Starcraft 2 because it's pretty accessible to newbies yet offers a very high skill ceiling for those who w…

i played SC2 and CSGO on OSX just fine for years. when i switched to better graphics hardware on Windows my CS rank jumped from MG2 to LEM, but i can't attribute this to the OS at all.

also, having only one hero to control only gives you the illusion that Dota/LoL is easier. it takes just as much effort to be "remotely good" at Dota as SC2. this is why most people who play casually are trash. MOBAs have so many players who don't even understand enough about the game to recognize they are bad. at least in SC it's obvious.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#23

Post by mAritz »

kaoD wrote: post #16
terda12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the game works great on Windows. I can't imagine playing games like SC2 or CSGO on OSX. It's just not economical for Blizzard to do an OSX port. The game has been kinda dead for a while now, because it's so unaccessible to the general population. Games like Dota and League of Legends have taken the place of Starcraft 2 because it's pretty accessible to newbies yet offers a very high skill ceiling for those who w…

CS:GO works on OS X :) http://store.steampowered.com/app/730/ OS: MacOS X 10.6.6 or higher It'd be interesting to know if it was economical for Valve to do these OS X ports. I guess they wanted to spread Steam usage to other OSes. I'm curious if it worked and if it was worth it.

They did the OpenGL ports anyways for Linux and CS:GO was originally developed for PS3 and XBOX 360 as well, so porting to OS X was likely not as much of a problem as it is for other games, because it had portability in mind.

Source runs rather well on OpenGL as well. The same can't be said about most other engines.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#24

Post by k__ »

anon4 wrote: post #19
k__ wrote: post #7

Are there any scientific resources about how almost every mainstream success is based on a rather "direct" copy of something that already existed? Like here with WarCraft/StarCraft and Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000.

WarCraft was going to be a Warhammer game until the licensing deal fell through.

Yes, I know.

But I hear people always complaining about how Y is like X was back in the days and nothing new.

Is there any pattern behind this?

People even say "Goethe hasn't invented Faust"

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#25

Post by venomsnake »

Blizzard's initial offerings were surprisingly dark and mature - both diablo, warcraft I&II and starcraft. Only starcraft's tone has not been degraded much so far (although the writing is weaker).

I guess legacy of the void concludes a chapter of the company history. They are a e-sports company now. Their three latest games are gameplay driven with barely any story at all. Overwatch, HoTS and HS.

Diablo III got a pass on its writing only because of the RMAH that was taking all the ire. I am not sure why the writing declined so much beginning with warcraft III - probably the gameplay requirements prevented the (extremely talented) team of giving their best.

There is still great writing in Blizzard's games - but their last character I cared about was Thorim in Storm Peaks (pre model change - while he was a huge varkul). The writing in the ICC and Cataclysm main storyline was quite meh. It just felt like the writers have written some amazing storyline then got their leashes pulled and told to simplify and make absolutely understandable for a lot younger audience.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#26

Post by icegreentea »

k__ wrote: post #7

Are there any scientific resources about how almost every mainstream success is based on a rather "direct" copy of something that already existed? Like here with WarCraft/StarCraft and Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000.

You will enjoy this documentary (Everything a Remix).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk

Hardly 'scientific'... but how do you quantify copying.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#27

Post by AlisdairO »

qznc wrote: post #10
terda12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the game works great on Windows. I can't imagine playing games like SC2 or CSGO on OSX. It's just not economical for Blizzard to do an OSX port. The game has been kinda dead for a while now, because it's so unaccessible to the general population. Games like Dota and League of Legends have taken the place of Starcraft 2 because it's pretty accessible to newbies yet offers a very high skill ceiling for those who w…

And yet I shy away from Dota, LoL, etc, because it wants me to learn the stats of a hundred heroes before I can play it somewhat competitively.

Starcraft is really heavy on twitch skills and multi-tasking, while Dota rewards knowledge.

Obviously you still need strong twitch/multitask skills to be really great at Dota, but you can go a surprising distance without them. I found that when picking up Dota I started to have fun and feel vaguely competent quicker - despite the fact that I didn't play for very long or get very good. I was aware that to progress far I'd need to pick up an enormous amount of information, but I could still feel good playing against other newbies.

With Starcraft (where I generally hovered between high gold and low platinum on EU), I always felt like I was doing really badly. I think this was probably due to the stress of the multitasking, at which I'm no natural :-).

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#28

Post by Vaskivo »

padobson wrote: post #15

Interaction design is a craft, and gaming is the subcategory of interaction design that most often ventures into the world of art. But the thing that most constrains the artform is this "little brother" mindset. Instead of waiting for society to understand and comprehend the medium, those who craft video games work to make their medium more like film or novels or music or other "high" artforms. So I get a little twit…

That was so beautiful it almost made me cry.

Thank for putting into words what has been in my heart for so long.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#29

Post by electricblue »

padobson wrote: post #15

Interaction design is a craft, and gaming is the subcategory of interaction design that most often ventures into the world of art. But the thing that most constrains the artform is this "little brother" mindset. Instead of waiting for society to understand and comprehend the medium, those who craft video games work to make their medium more like film or novels or music or other "high" artforms. So I get a little twit…

There is a balancing act that every successful game has to perform between gameplay and motivation. Without gameplay, games are dull passive experiences (see David Cage) with no pull to keep the player engaged. Without motivation gameplay feels empty and pointless like playing chess with yourself. Starcraft's campaign wouldn't have been half as engaging if it was a map pack with basic instructions before each mission. While games aren't movies they have learned a valuable lesson in using dramatic tension to make certain moments memorable.

Re: StarCraft: The past, present and future

#30

Post by xlcashlx »

steckerbrett wrote: post #2

It's unfortunate how much the original game has rotted, the online servers are up but the program itself is becoming more are more unplayable. The OSX versions have been dead for a long time, on windows it seems to be getting harder and harder to run as well. The recent job posting hopefully indicate they're interested in de-breaking them, couldn't care less for a HD remake, just a version that actually works again.…

For those interested, the recent job opening mentioned can be found here -> http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/careers/posting.html?id...
Post reply on HN