...sounds like you only played to the second-to-last mission then, rather than to the actual end.

Starcraft has an excellent story. Human race was defeated. Yes, and? Why not? This ugly race is not at all better than any other. If I remember my very first GC II game, terrans were my first race, I have ever exterminated.

chapter 2 was the zerg, and chapter 3 was the Protoss, IIRC. the Protoss ended up teaming up with the remnants of the Terrans that stayed allied with Raynor and killing the Overmind.

i do understand your sentiments about the sudden change in the story's perspective. i remember it being a jarring experience for me as well.

i'd say if nothing else, if you still have the disks it'd be worth checking out the Zerg and Protoss chapters just to catch the story, even if you do it by cheating.

Perhaps logical, but at the end of the day, games are for having fun as a priority over doing what is logical. When you play a campaign, the idea is to try to beat the bad guys not spend your time floundering around in a pointless mission as the good guys which cannot be wone just so you can experience the workings of the bad guys afterwards, to me that does not make for fun gameplay at all.

Hardcore gamers like micromanagement, but for most people (including me), micromangement is gay. I'd really like to see valve work on a Half Life RTS, with smart units. They simply make awesome games.


One more thing, why does blizzard think that bad graphics make better games, than say, a game with great gameplay and great graphics. It doesn't make sense.

Do any of you play Half-Life?

Sure, look at the DL campaign, did it have a happy ending? No but it was still a fantastic campaign. That does not make the Starcraft campaign good, the Starcraft campaign forces you to turn on yourself. It is an intriguing concept, which may work for some people but not for me.

It may seem a little that way looking at my posts. I did actually attempt to keep an open mind when i played it, and i tried to get into the spirit of the idea but it just flopped, i genuinly hated the change of faction idea.

(bumping)

Played Starcraft, now sitting on my archive shelf
C&C(entire series) also same fate
Alpha Centauri actually lasted longer...shelved
Civ 1-4.. 2 is still on my PC rest shelved
Hell I still have entire Zork series on my old PC, along with 11th hr, 7th guest.
Remember Outpost by Sierra. Shelved but played the hell out of it even though it was a crappy game and bugged like no ohter.
I'm a fan of Myst, those puzzle games keeps 12% of my 2 working brain cells active.

I agree with several here, I'll trade superior graphics for superior gameplay anytime. Geez how many of us spent many useless hours playing PONG..

As also stated does appear many game makers are sacrificing gameplay and longevity for graphics and many other unnecessary things. Just my opinion though. Same with music nowadays, I really doubt very many songs in last 20years will have the same longevity as those made in 50's 60's and 70's (Beatles, Stones, Great example zeppelin reunion concert, 12000 tickets, millions of attempts to get 1 and they havent played in years, put out an album (not counting all these GH's and remasters) since Coda(pretty sure here).

I've stuck with GC for so long because of it's constant evolution and gameplay as opposed to graphics. Have no idea why I still play PONG...lol

Actually, you're missing a lot of the story with that war. When the ship with the leader was on board in the attack that caused the war, their defenses were down. They didn't have up any ECM, shields, etc. Pretty much, they were coming in with defenses down and gunports open to show that they were friendly and to give the humans the respect due to warriors. Having gunports open like that is incredibly dangerous, since any targetting computer worth its processors will be able to destroy your guns in the first salvo, leaving your only options to be running away or dying.

After that, the issue is ECM. With the Mimbari ECM up, human targetting sensors couldn't lock onto their ships. In effect, the humans were firing blind. Their automated defenses could do nothing more than randomfire, which made them just as much a danger to their own ships as to the enemy. Plus, I'm willing to bet they couldn't bring the bigger weapons to bear, since I bet those would be slaved to the targetting computer. And without the bigger cannons, they were at even more of a disadvantage.

I'm willing to bet that humans actually did destroy several Mimbari ships during that war. However, they had to do it using risky and often suicidal tactics. Tactics that they couldn't afford, since they'd need every ship they could get ahold of to last as long as possible. Also, I'm willing to bet they didn't know the exact size of the Mimbari military, thus making it impossible for suicide runs to be a viable strategy. What good it is to suicide bomb if all you do is end up opening the front door for the military?

Basically, humanity was outgunned, outnumbered, and forced to play defensive. No matter how you look at it, they were in a situation that was a tactical nightmare.



It's a video game adaption of Warhammer 40k (which, in turn, is arguably the source of StarCraft).

though the visuals in the show made it look like ships were getting up close and personal in B5, the distances of real ("real") space combat could be very great; targetting by using eyes alone would be vastly more difficult than we've ever experienced historically. my sense is that targetting computers, among other things, are helping to compensate for the massive distances between ships (and thus delays between the weapon being fired and it potentially hitting something).

Two things: one, we don't have such a thing yet, so it's hard to say that.
Two (and I suppose more, as this is getting long now that I'm typing it), When it comes to space weaponry, the size of missiles and mass drivers would be constrictive. Beam weapons could (with theoretical reactors) theoretically produce a larger bang for much less mass, allowing the ship to keep more for movement. Plus, beams travel at lightspeed and missiles don't. Plus, shooting a beam doesn't result in (nearly as much) reaction force displacement of the ship as shooting a missile or mass driver. I'd say it's similarly possible that "real" ship combat may well turn out to be a close-range affair, primarily with beam weapons, resorting to old fashioned naval broadsiding tactics. Eventually reactors and engines would become efficient enough that maneuvering engines could come into play on a close scale. These engines wouldn't be for going fast, they'd be for allowing a ship to shoot an enemy without allowing the enemy to shoot back. Think, similar engines to the rockets we use on the space shuttle now, just likely in a more efficient format. Cruise engines would obviously be for travel only.