Doomhammer
Bob Kotick - Gamers' corporate spoilsport No. 1
- Reaction score
- 67
True, but only to a point. It may sound very subjective, but from a technical point, Starcraft was anything but top notch when it launched. I remember exactly reading the preview article in my favorite games magazine at that time. There was an introductory article with detailed description of all the terran, zerg and protoss units, and the unit images (taken from in-game screenshots) were pixelated with pixels of 2mmx2mm! What a turn-off! Total Annihilation, having launched about a year before already boasted graphics in SVGA. I mean, wow!, S(!)-VGA, that was about the highest resolution of proper monitors that era. Beeing far too keen on graphics, my first thought about Starcraft was the kind of "yet another game in outdated VGA - what a bunch of BS".@Kingbdogz:
Starcraft did revolutionize the RTS genre no matter if you like to acknowledge it or not. When starcraft first came out it was an amazing experience to play it, it had amazing graphics compared to the other RTS games that where out at the time and the controls where just to die for.
After all, it took merely an hour playing the demo on LAN (!) to be set on fire by the awesomeness of this game.
In the end, I now know better, meaning that graphics is just one single aspect among many that contributes to gameplay and game experience; graphics (by its screen resolution) itself being probably the weakest link in the original Starcraft, as sound, interface, control, unit design, unit balancing, "unit characters", mission design, storytelling, cutscenes, multiplayer map design, battlenet and last but not least StarEdit all merged into one coherent and harmonious concept to prove the most amazing RTS game expererience of the time and for many years to come.
So it wasn't the mere graphics but the - on an artistic level - brilliant blend of all the other aspects that made Starcraft outstanding over other great RTS titles of the time, such as C&C and TA.