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 twitchy when a gaming website does a story about a franchise like StarCraft and features the writing as the game changing aspect of it. StarCraft is not great because it's a sci-fi game. Warcraft is not great because it has ogres. Super Mario Brothers is not great because it has a chubby Italian plumber.
Interaction design often requires some metaphor - some analogy to inspire your first interaction with the system. The plumber, the ogre, the Zealot. But once you push that first button, and the system responds, the analogy is no longer the inspiration for delight, for frustration, for joy or pain. The interaction itself becomes the driving factor. And the most perfectly crafted interactions can inspire the full range of emotions without relying on a coherent plot, orchestrated sound, or ten minutes of FMV.
And StarCraft is one of the greatest examples of this. I don't care what a Zealot's motivation is, I only care about how much ground he can cover before the Hydra destroys him. My pulse is rising because the HP of my units is falling and my army is shrinking faster than my opponent's, not because I feel bad that the Zealots didn't procure the glory their race yearns after.
If gaming is ever going to take its proper place in the pantheon of higher artforms, it needs to stop acting like something it's not. Video games aren't movies, and they never will be. I hope the video games industry figures this out someday.
You're talking about two different types of games: Games of Sport vs. Games of Immersion
The difference: Context
Starcraft multiplayer is a Game of Sport, where character and story are nonexistent and mechanics/"interaction" are all that matters in a game of chess completely removed from any context other than the tournament you are playing in.
Switch over to campaign mode and the context becomes the story line and plot. Sure, the game still relies on mechanics but you advance through different scenarios where you meet new characters, form alliances, explore new worlds, and even switch sides and play as a different race based on the plot of the story. Solo play is a Game of Immersion.
The Dark Souls franchise has a good balance of the two. You advance across the world (semi) linearly in a movie-like fashion, learning about the various NPCs and lore of the world. You are also regularly invaded by other players, and then the game becomes completely mechanics/interaction-based until one of you wins the duel.
You're basically arguing that video games are/should be more like a football game than a movie. They can span both forms of entertainment, and people will choose to engage with one or the other based on personal preferences.
I have been a starcraft player for almost 2 decades now and I never really cared about the story or background to it. What I cared about is that it combines elements of some of my favorite strategy games into a single medium. I often say that it has elements of chess, poker and reaction based games like first person shooters.
It is like chess in that it is a game of strategy and board control, army movement, identifying what your opponent is planning and actively countering it, identifying weaknesses and exploiting them.
It is like poker in that is a game of imperfect information. Unlike chess I cannot ever see the entire board in starcraft, only the pieces I have scouted and as soon as my scout leaves that information is now outdated and assumptions have to be made about the actions of the opponent since I last had accurate information. Poker is similar in that you can never have 100% certainty of what your opponent may be holding, there is always that knowledge gap and great players can exploit it.
It is like first person shooters in that is it reaction based, the person who is able to more efficiently process the information they are receiving and make correct decisions about their course of action can execute faster and have an exponential return in terms of tipping the scales in their favor. This applies to many things such as base building, army building and micro mechanics during army engagement.
I've been a fan for so long precicely because these fine strategy details and forced decision making make an excellent filter between the good and the great, the great and the elite. Watching the elite play is comparable in my mind to watching chess grandmasters battle only in real time and not turn based where their perceived life is on the line and one slip up can cause instant death. It's that great adrenaline high, not the background story, that has kept me so engaged for so long.
I partially disagree with you. Some of my most memorable moments are the stories of various games. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy VII, Zelda: A Link to the Past and so on all, with their great gameplay for the time, above average to great story lines that captured its audience.
Now on to games like StarCraft, DoDA, Quake 3, and Counter-Strike were all hailed as some of the greats, not because of the story like you pointed out, but because of the game mechanics that allowed them to be used as a medium for competitive gaming. And, as a former competitive gamer, I can attest to the addictive nature of gaming that causes your heart to race and one's palms to sweat while trying to clinch a victory.
For this, I believe you can't say stories don't matter. I believe there are games that are better suited for repetitive gameplay and those that rely on a great story and subpar game mechanics to reel in or captivate the player(s).
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.
Yeah, seriously. For hardcore StarCraft fans, the narratives they REALLY care about involve characters such as Greg Fields, Lim Yo Hwan, Lee Young Ho, and Lee Jae Dong; not Jim Raynor and Kerrigan.
I think this actually demonstrates a common mistake people make in thinking about video games. There's room for a lot more diversity in experience, and talking about them as a single type of art is sort of like lumping together films and novels. They run the full spectrum between tight text-based interactive fiction with two boolean decisions in the whole work, and Minecraft. Generalizing games as a special case of interaction design works for a subset, but certainly not the entire medium.
As a more personal counter example: There have been many games where I have hated the mechanics and continued playing for the story or art, and I know many people who are the same way.
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.
I'm glad someone is finally saying this. Gaming seems to suffer from a serious inferiority complex, where they hope by mimicking the dominant art forms they can gain legitimacy. So a game like Bioshock is seen as superior to a game like Ms. Pacman because it has all these "movie-like" qualities. It has nice production values, and a narrative, a soundtrack. In reality I think 20 years from now you will still have people trying to break high score records on games like Ms. Pacman and Donkey Kong whereas Bioshock will be seen the same way we look at games like Night Trap today.
I think the most damaging idea to ever enter gaming is the myth that it's primarily a 'narrative' medium. That is horribly reductionist and limiting. Games are about narrative generation, not narrative delivery. That's the beauty of it. Each starcraft match is a narrative in the same way a professional chess match is a narrative. I think this is why let's plays are so popular. You aren't watching to get the game's story, you are watching to get the specific narrative that is created by a certain person playing the game.
one trouble with game stories is that 99.999% of the time you know exactly where they're going because you're the protagonist and you will win or die.
the second problem is that there are only a few good writers of the correct style out there and they're all in television. (total hyperbole but the point should be evident)
the third problem is that video game makers refuse to accept their actual demographics and they keep aiming the story at 14 year old boys, who have awful taste, frankly.
Interaction accomplishes the browsing of information, just like scanning a picture or looking through a card catalog.
And when folks make broad appeals to interactivity, they are saying that somehow the interaction of the gamepad is fundamentally different from turning the page of a book.
But that isn't what we are thinking about as we get immersed in a game experience - we soon forget that the controls are there.
It is the simulation that people turn to next - a believable world that responds to your actions in complex ways.
But again, there is a problem - more than one problem. If the simulation is as chaotic as reality, people lose track of the hooks that kept them involved - they no longer have the ability to make extensive plans or strategies, neither are there any puzzles to solve cleanly and gracefully. And if the simulation adds detail without purpose, it dilutes any designed intent. The small differences in situations are vastly overwhelmed by a few key elements that control the real outcomes - leading to a noisy experience. Only a few kinds of games can survive the extensive sim treatment - the kinds of games that you play with the intent of telling a story about later. Put to this purpose the details rise back to the surface as important story elements.
If not those two things, what is it that is grabbing you about Starcraft? Here I would pause to consider what unifies chess, science, and literature. It is the conversation of being posed problems and arguing your case and proving your points, given a factual situation involving arbitrary rules. There are different interactions involved in each case, different skills and levels of execution needed. But it is this thing of being posed interesting problems with variety, one after another, that drives both the best liked games and stories. They don't have to be hard or deep problems - "who will the main character hook up with" drives countless stories and "which team will get the most points" drives most sports - but they give you something to chew on.
And so a writing focus is, in this light, an equal partner to a mechanics focus - either could be taking the lead role. The writing could pose a question that the player solves mechanically - that's a very typical model. Or the writing could usher you in one direction, only to reach a mechanical contradiction, leading the player to a critique of the system, a desire to escape the rules.
What we don't ask people to do in games is to design, from scratch, large parts of the experience. That takes us out of the realm of immersion, browsing, and strategizing, and into "hard" creativity where an intentional vision drives large bodies of work.
Your viewpoint totally discounts wide swaths of games and gamers for which the story and lore ARE very important. Games aren't one or the other, they're the combination of all these things.
I think it is ok for an article to focus on one aspect of a game series without covering everything. Also the three unique races with different characters made Starcraft special.
And maybe the writing is what gets "society to understand and comprehend the medium." If you ask any adult who does not play video games what they think of Mario, they are more likely to say "oh the cute chubby plumber" than they are to say "I heard that game is well-designed."
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.
To some extent I think that the writing became weaker as the story became more explicit. In Starcraft, you were a character as well --- people advised you and argued with you. Ultimately, although you take orders you were free to interpret the characters and events on your own.
In contrast, Starcraft 2 has you play as established characters. From the promotional material[0]:
> You are Jim Raynor, a marshal-turned-rebel on a vigilante crusade to bring down the Dominion and its nefarious leader, Arcturus Mengsk. Haunted by betrayal and remorse, some believe you may have given up the fight.
This writing task is much harder --- they need you to have a matching experience with the character they are portraying and yet still force you into what their predetermined plot points are.
Consider the case of Raynor rescuing Kerrigan at the end of Starcraft 2, after swearing eternal vengeance against her in Brood War. If the player were another participant in the world it might be reasonable to watch Raynor evolve to that position. However, because I as the player explicitly am Raynor and his choices are mine, Blizzard needed to convince me that saving Kerrigan made sense --- which they did not even come close to doing.
A similar thing happened in the shift from Warcraft II to Warcraft III --- you went from being a character/commander on your own to explicitly controlling another hero.
Yeah, Blizzard had a gothic tone in a lot of their early games. Unfortunately, they've replaced it with cartoony stuff for the most part. Writing wise they've fallen a long way, but it doesn't matter.
Blizzard's primary success since their early games (pre-WoW) is understanding and abusing the psychology of addiction and creating videogames around that concept. They make ultra-streamlined (sometimes to the point of being nearly featureless) and ultra-polished games which are usually super easy to approach but tough to master. The writing is generally cartoony/poor, but the moneymaking potential of each game is very large. They still produce some winners, if you can get over the above.
They're planning to release a graphic novel, web comic series, and animated shorts to support Overwatch. Metzen announced it at BlizzCon just a couple days ago, so I think a lot of the writing talent has moved to Overwatch.
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.
Impressed that Blizzard still runs the IRC servers necessary for that part of Battle.net though, far more modern games have lost all of their multiplayer within a couple of years let alone two decades on. There's third party remakes of the server daemons but you need a hacked up client to use them, or at least you did last I looked a decade ago.
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 want to play competitively. Starcraft 2 is simply too difficult of a game - you have to micromanage not only whole armies but also create new buildings and new units, looking for ways to boost your economy, and micromanaging research, all at the same time. It's simply too much to ask for a new player looking to break into the game.
Dota existed because players just wanted to play a single hero inside an RTS game, and not have to control an army. The army is automated, there is no research, and there is no building/economy to worry about. You simply control one unit. Then League came and made it even more accessible to new players. Starcraft just simply cannot compete with both of these games, it just takes too much effort to even be remotely good at the game.
The best way to run original Starcraft these days is Wine (implementing windows XP behavior), on OS X or linux. I've done both, it works pretty well.
IIRC the mouse acceleration was sometimes problematic in OS X, you might need one of the many third-party utilities for OS X that let you disable or tweak it, e.g. USB Overdrive, or maybe Smoothmouse would work.
I was just at the Legacy of the Void launch event at the Coex in Seoul. There was one developer on hand who took questions from the crowd and tried to answer them without giving away any spoilers. There were also a few show matches between popular players, and a wedding for a former Broodwar pro player; it was quite the event.
Even though other genres are a lot more popular than RTS is now, the packed venue makes me optimistic about the future of the Starcraft franchise.
A fun mental exercise: What would it look like for something to be completely original? What could be made that would be completely immune to the charge of "not being original"? And would it have any value?
I would say it's 50/50 between Warhammer 40k and the Alien franchise when it comes to StarCraft. Both StarCraft and WarCraft steals from a ton of other franchises and glues them together, reaffirming the saying "Good artists borrow, great artists steal!"
[+] [-] padobson|10 years ago|reply
So I get a little twitchy when a gaming website does a story about a franchise like StarCraft and features the writing as the game changing aspect of it. StarCraft is not great because it's a sci-fi game. Warcraft is not great because it has ogres. Super Mario Brothers is not great because it has a chubby Italian plumber.
Interaction design often requires some metaphor - some analogy to inspire your first interaction with the system. The plumber, the ogre, the Zealot. But once you push that first button, and the system responds, the analogy is no longer the inspiration for delight, for frustration, for joy or pain. The interaction itself becomes the driving factor. And the most perfectly crafted interactions can inspire the full range of emotions without relying on a coherent plot, orchestrated sound, or ten minutes of FMV.
And StarCraft is one of the greatest examples of this. I don't care what a Zealot's motivation is, I only care about how much ground he can cover before the Hydra destroys him. My pulse is rising because the HP of my units is falling and my army is shrinking faster than my opponent's, not because I feel bad that the Zealots didn't procure the glory their race yearns after.
If gaming is ever going to take its proper place in the pantheon of higher artforms, it needs to stop acting like something it's not. Video games aren't movies, and they never will be. I hope the video games industry figures this out someday.
[+] [-] roymurdock|10 years ago|reply
The difference: Context
Starcraft multiplayer is a Game of Sport, where character and story are nonexistent and mechanics/"interaction" are all that matters in a game of chess completely removed from any context other than the tournament you are playing in.
Switch over to campaign mode and the context becomes the story line and plot. Sure, the game still relies on mechanics but you advance through different scenarios where you meet new characters, form alliances, explore new worlds, and even switch sides and play as a different race based on the plot of the story. Solo play is a Game of Immersion.
The Dark Souls franchise has a good balance of the two. You advance across the world (semi) linearly in a movie-like fashion, learning about the various NPCs and lore of the world. You are also regularly invaded by other players, and then the game becomes completely mechanics/interaction-based until one of you wins the duel.
You're basically arguing that video games are/should be more like a football game than a movie. They can span both forms of entertainment, and people will choose to engage with one or the other based on personal preferences.
[+] [-] BinaryResult|10 years ago|reply
It is like chess in that it is a game of strategy and board control, army movement, identifying what your opponent is planning and actively countering it, identifying weaknesses and exploiting them.
It is like poker in that is a game of imperfect information. Unlike chess I cannot ever see the entire board in starcraft, only the pieces I have scouted and as soon as my scout leaves that information is now outdated and assumptions have to be made about the actions of the opponent since I last had accurate information. Poker is similar in that you can never have 100% certainty of what your opponent may be holding, there is always that knowledge gap and great players can exploit it.
It is like first person shooters in that is it reaction based, the person who is able to more efficiently process the information they are receiving and make correct decisions about their course of action can execute faster and have an exponential return in terms of tipping the scales in their favor. This applies to many things such as base building, army building and micro mechanics during army engagement.
I've been a fan for so long precicely because these fine strategy details and forced decision making make an excellent filter between the good and the great, the great and the elite. Watching the elite play is comparable in my mind to watching chess grandmasters battle only in real time and not turn based where their perceived life is on the line and one slip up can cause instant death. It's that great adrenaline high, not the background story, that has kept me so engaged for so long.
[+] [-] rtehfm|10 years ago|reply
Now on to games like StarCraft, DoDA, Quake 3, and Counter-Strike were all hailed as some of the greats, not because of the story like you pointed out, but because of the game mechanics that allowed them to be used as a medium for competitive gaming. And, as a former competitive gamer, I can attest to the addictive nature of gaming that causes your heart to race and one's palms to sweat while trying to clinch a victory.
For this, I believe you can't say stories don't matter. I believe there are games that are better suited for repetitive gameplay and those that rely on a great story and subpar game mechanics to reel in or captivate the player(s).
[+] [-] chongli|10 years ago|reply
Yeah, seriously. For hardcore StarCraft fans, the narratives they REALLY care about involve characters such as Greg Fields, Lim Yo Hwan, Lee Young Ho, and Lee Jae Dong; not Jim Raynor and Kerrigan.
[+] [-] machinesofn|10 years ago|reply
As a more personal counter example: There have been many games where I have hated the mechanics and continued playing for the story or art, and I know many people who are the same way.
[+] [-] electricblue|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LurkingPresence|10 years ago|reply
I think the most damaging idea to ever enter gaming is the myth that it's primarily a 'narrative' medium. That is horribly reductionist and limiting. Games are about narrative generation, not narrative delivery. That's the beauty of it. Each starcraft match is a narrative in the same way a professional chess match is a narrative. I think this is why let's plays are so popular. You aren't watching to get the game's story, you are watching to get the specific narrative that is created by a certain person playing the game.
[+] [-] oldmanjay|10 years ago|reply
the second problem is that there are only a few good writers of the correct style out there and they're all in television. (total hyperbole but the point should be evident)
the third problem is that video game makers refuse to accept their actual demographics and they keep aiming the story at 14 year old boys, who have awful taste, frankly.
edit: accidental word
[+] [-] chipsy|10 years ago|reply
And when folks make broad appeals to interactivity, they are saying that somehow the interaction of the gamepad is fundamentally different from turning the page of a book.
But that isn't what we are thinking about as we get immersed in a game experience - we soon forget that the controls are there.
It is the simulation that people turn to next - a believable world that responds to your actions in complex ways.
But again, there is a problem - more than one problem. If the simulation is as chaotic as reality, people lose track of the hooks that kept them involved - they no longer have the ability to make extensive plans or strategies, neither are there any puzzles to solve cleanly and gracefully. And if the simulation adds detail without purpose, it dilutes any designed intent. The small differences in situations are vastly overwhelmed by a few key elements that control the real outcomes - leading to a noisy experience. Only a few kinds of games can survive the extensive sim treatment - the kinds of games that you play with the intent of telling a story about later. Put to this purpose the details rise back to the surface as important story elements.
If not those two things, what is it that is grabbing you about Starcraft? Here I would pause to consider what unifies chess, science, and literature. It is the conversation of being posed problems and arguing your case and proving your points, given a factual situation involving arbitrary rules. There are different interactions involved in each case, different skills and levels of execution needed. But it is this thing of being posed interesting problems with variety, one after another, that drives both the best liked games and stories. They don't have to be hard or deep problems - "who will the main character hook up with" drives countless stories and "which team will get the most points" drives most sports - but they give you something to chew on.
And so a writing focus is, in this light, an equal partner to a mechanics focus - either could be taking the lead role. The writing could pose a question that the player solves mechanically - that's a very typical model. Or the writing could usher you in one direction, only to reach a mechanical contradiction, leading the player to a critique of the system, a desire to escape the rules.
What we don't ask people to do in games is to design, from scratch, large parts of the experience. That takes us out of the realm of immersion, browsing, and strategizing, and into "hard" creativity where an intentional vision drives large bodies of work.
[+] [-] d0m|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorjohn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TorKlingberg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vaskivo|10 years ago|reply
Thank for putting into words what has been in my heart for so long.
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thesteamboat|10 years ago|reply
In contrast, Starcraft 2 has you play as established characters. From the promotional material[0]:
> You are Jim Raynor, a marshal-turned-rebel on a vigilante crusade to bring down the Dominion and its nefarious leader, Arcturus Mengsk. Haunted by betrayal and remorse, some believe you may have given up the fight.
This writing task is much harder --- they need you to have a matching experience with the character they are portraying and yet still force you into what their predetermined plot points are.
Consider the case of Raynor rescuing Kerrigan at the end of Starcraft 2, after swearing eternal vengeance against her in Brood War. If the player were another participant in the world it might be reasonable to watch Raynor evolve to that position. However, because I as the player explicitly am Raynor and his choices are mine, Blizzard needed to convince me that saving Kerrigan made sense --- which they did not even come close to doing.
A similar thing happened in the shift from Warcraft II to Warcraft III --- you went from being a character/commander on your own to explicitly controlling another hero.
[0]: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/sc2/
[+] [-] cryoshon|10 years ago|reply
Blizzard's primary success since their early games (pre-WoW) is understanding and abusing the psychology of addiction and creating videogames around that concept. They make ultra-streamlined (sometimes to the point of being nearly featureless) and ultra-polished games which are usually super easy to approach but tough to master. The writing is generally cartoony/poor, but the moneymaking potential of each game is very large. They still produce some winners, if you can get over the above.
[+] [-] robwilliams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steckerbrett|10 years ago|reply
Impressed that Blizzard still runs the IRC servers necessary for that part of Battle.net though, far more modern games have lost all of their multiplayer within a couple of years let alone two decades on. There's third party remakes of the server daemons but you need a hacked up client to use them, or at least you did last I looked a decade ago.
[+] [-] terda12|10 years ago|reply
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 want to play competitively. Starcraft 2 is simply too difficult of a game - you have to micromanage not only whole armies but also create new buildings and new units, looking for ways to boost your economy, and micromanaging research, all at the same time. It's simply too much to ask for a new player looking to break into the game.
Dota existed because players just wanted to play a single hero inside an RTS game, and not have to control an army. The army is automated, there is no research, and there is no building/economy to worry about. You simply control one unit. Then League came and made it even more accessible to new players. Starcraft just simply cannot compete with both of these games, it just takes too much effort to even be remotely good at the game.
[+] [-] ploxiln|10 years ago|reply
IIRC the mouse acceleration was sometimes problematic in OS X, you might need one of the many third-party utilities for OS X that let you disable or tweak it, e.g. USB Overdrive, or maybe Smoothmouse would work.
[+] [-] xlcashlx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realharo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz_pl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThePhysicist|10 years ago|reply
Performance-wise it shouldn't be an issue on today's hardware.
[+] [-] XorNot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fiahil|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tylerpachal|10 years ago|reply
Even though other genres are a lot more popular than RTS is now, the packed venue makes me optimistic about the future of the Starcraft franchise.
[+] [-] k__|10 years ago|reply
Like here with WarCraft/StarCraft and Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000.
[+] [-] jerf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doppel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jegutman|10 years ago|reply
http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
[+] [-] anon4|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icegreentea|10 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk
Hardly 'scientific'... but how do you quantify copying.
[+] [-] greenleafjacob|10 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fV5KADifY