Talk:StarCraft/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Display Issue with IE7

Display issue in IE7: There is a huge gap in "Gameplay" section --Voidvector 09:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not just IE7, as I still have IE6, and it's there too. Parsecboy 13:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember that when I used to use IE6. Switch to Firefox to fix the problem. Firefox is better than IE7 anyways, see acid2. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 15:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X version?

Is Starcraft really for OS X like it says in the article? My box says it's only for OS 7.6 or higher. Maybe it should be rewritten to say that it can be emulated in OS X running on PPC processors. --Duckfootx 06:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

well, since MAC OS X (i.e., OS 10) is a higher version than OS 7.6, it's fine. Parsecboy 13:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
StarCraft is not emulated on OS X. Blizzard released a Carbon (Mac OS X native) binary for StarCraft after OS X came out. Phils 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
aye. Starcraft (Carbon) is fully OS X native, but the World Editor still requires Classic. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Terrans are the versatile and flexible alternative to both races, providing a compromise between specialization and combined arms." Surely combined arms depends on specialization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.118.130.145 (talk)

They're completely opposite. Ryuugaki (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3 Different Boxes for the PC version

was there any reason my image of all 3 boxes was removed? Nismojoe 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably a copyright violation.

How? They were my boxes and my picture. Nismojoe 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft 2

There was a rumor that there would be a StarCraft 2 a few years back. Did anything come of that?

yes.

they started in 2003. going to be finished sometime after 2007.

[1].

actually, there seems to be a few hints about another starcraft game by 2008. Yo.--Duckfootx 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • dude, if you still care at all, heres some cool vid. i found on google video--> "Starcraft 2" i'm prety sure it is not the official starcraft 2. But it still looks reely cool.
That's a mod for C&C Generals: Zero Hour. i know that there had been a total conversion before this mod by other guys, but they got sued by blizzard for copyright stuff.--El Nazgir 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there another expansion pak after Brood War?

No, there wasn't another expansion after brood war, and that rumor seems a very thin one at that, if starcraft 2 was going to come out in the next year, there would be much more talk about it--Manwithbrisk 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked it out there are two expansion sets after Brood War, StarCraft: Retribution and StarCraft: Insurrection. Both are quite obscure and very rare.-- Bioform 1234 15:07, Feb. 26, 2007

Yeah, but those weren't made by Blizzard, just 3rd parties. As such, they are basically just new campaigns. A nice supplement, but not something I'd be willing to pay for.--C.Logan 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this, StarCraft 2 will be officially announced at Blizzard's World Wide Invitational on May 19th. There is no source for the original Korean, and so it isn't enough to justify creation of the SC2 article--but it certainly raised my eyebrow. Anyone know what to make of it? Ourai тʃс 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Their is no evidence that this is true. While I would like it to be true and expect blizzard to be working on something new. And if I was blizzard I wouldn't announce starcraft II at on the 19th if it had been leaked like this. Most other "evidence" involves people associated with blizzard saying they want to see a sequel sometime or another. So overall none of this is notable to me, other the existance of rabid speculation.Lotu 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant and there's evidence that it's true. I think you were acting pessimistic because of the StarCraft Ghost project 'cancellation'? right? well whatever it is, i don't blame you. Let's wait until several months and it will be on the market. --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.starcraft2.com ] It's interesting that Blizzard had registered this domain.It doesn't prove anything but it's a strong sign.

Starcraft 2 has been announced. This wiki needs an update.

Already have a created article... :) --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I think that this, formerly excellent, article has been vandalised such that now, all that it says is "Starcraft rules" Maybe this is a feature, not a bug? Utgardsloki 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Grr another vandalism on the starcraft page this is the sentence im talking about "It is also very popular among 16 year old nerds who have nothing better to do." This has a grain of truth but obviously this is insulting to players of starcraft. I've already deleted it.

World of Starcraft Prank

I don't know if this warrants a mention, but I'm sure you've seen the World of Starcraft April Fool's day prank from last year (complete with screenshots).[2] Of course, it is just a prank, but probably warrants a sentence or two. --C.Logan 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Antioch Chronicles?

I'm not sure where else to ask this, or put this, or whatever. TAC (The Antioch Chronicles) was an award winning fan campaign, created by Reuben Moreno (Auspex) and Eric Dieter (ZeusLegion). I was expecting a Wikipedia article on it -- hopefully trying to figure out whatever happened to Episode III. I've gotten as far as finding out that ZL has a falling out with the Antioch Forever crowd (Supposedly keeping Antioch alive, though they have nothing TAC related anymore). And I was able to retrieve a Script for Episode III.

After checking the deletion log here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antioch_Chronicles -- it seems that no one was properly able to defend the article, nor cite reputable sources as per the seeming zealotry here on Wikipedia dictates. However Antioch Chronicles was featured in numerous magazines and such; see google cache: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:D2B_huQgDiUJ:www.antiochforever.com/wiki.pl%3FAntioch_FAQ+PC+Gamer+Antioch+Chronicles&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us (ZL falling out with that Antioch Forever, caused most info on TAC to be removed completely, which is sad).

I've also noticed that The Antioch Chronicles within the main starcraft article simply links externally to AntiochForever, which is probably not a good thing seeing as AF has nothing to do with TAC anymore or at least offers very sparse/limited information.

The claims that it was featured in PC Gamer or its Online Arena (I can attest to that, seeing as I've got a copy... somewhere) should be easily verifiable. The other awards, via online sites or places like Infoceptor may not be good enough (Verfiability stuff on Wikipedia always confuses me -- the Talk pages here are almost more interesting to read then anything else).

However, the campaign is often sourced as one of the first and/or best fan campaigns of starcraft. Granted that, after so long since Brood War was released, TAC isn't as popular as it once was -- but everyone who plays through the campaign often wonders... "Is this from blizzard?" Granted that the only official source maybe PC Gamer itself, though that should be enough shouldn't it? It's not as if TAC was a crummy Campaign. It featured blizzard-quality sounds, and a seemingly authentic storyline. (read; opinion alert, but c'mon)

Would it be possible to see TAC revived on Wikipedia? However, at this late date, there are so few sources left (Barring Wayback's Antioch website and/or AuspexStudios) so perhaps its best left dead? I just find it sad that it was reviewed for deletion by people who could've discovered its "notability" with a few google searches.

Meh, no one is probably even going to respond. Oh well, at least I got around to finally adding something to WP, even if only in Talk Page form. --74.133.16.118 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumor about SC 2

Have a look here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/779/779920p1.html --84.178.73.163 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is (a) SC2 (announcement) imminent? I hope so. More here [3] and here is the source [4]. It seems all will be clarified at the 2007 Blizzard Worldwide Invitational in Seoul [5]. --h_a 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The rumors are true visit http://www.starcraft2.com

List of starcraft units

There needs to be an article about the starcraft units describing each unit I dont care if someone thinks its fancruft or something its bloody fucking important to starcraft and needed escpecially because of all these crapy dedirects that takes the unit to the race which is fucking useless type in mutalisk and it takes you to zerg section yea that somewhat good but very incomplete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentheartlesspain (talk • contribs) 16:04, May 1, 2007

In July 2007, the decision was made to delete a whole slew of StarCraft units' articles. The reasons cited were fair ones, namely that the articles themselves were mostly instructions on how to properly use the unit. Any other information that even could be provided in the articles would either be dry technical data (units' range, attack values, etc.) or fictional backstory. I did quite a bit of work on the articles' pages, and (though I personally disagree with the articles' deletion) not enough has changed to warrant reversing the decision. If you think that the decision needs to be overturned, however, you are certainly free to open a deletion review, but, in absence of new material since the decision (July 06), there isn't much of a reason why it should be reversed. Ourai тʃс 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

you want a reason heres a reason go find some random person tell them to search the unit and then ask them to describe the unit there should be a list of units for each race and then list of buildings for each race its you type vulture search and it goes to terran article what do you know about vultures, its a terran and not much else making list of units page needed if the pages were deleted then it must be started over ~~AGHP

considering that starcraft is a FA article but this was given in 2005, without the units i feel the article is incomplete and should be demoted to GA article untill its changed having list of unit is not fancruft but rather important part of the game and should be part of article or the article should be demoted untill its fixed and then it can be a chance to get back its FA title ~~AGHP


I'm willing to bet nobody's going to come back to read this, and I have to admit I don't know what francruft means, but I feel this needs saying. There is a complete and detailed analysis of every Starcraft unit on the starcraft page at battle.net. Specifically, go to http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/unit.shtml .../protoss/unit.shtml , or.../zerg/unit.shtml for a list of units. Clicking on any one of these units brings up a very detailed look at the unit, it's stats, its available upgrades, it's size and damage type, and its strategies and uses against each race. I don't know what else you could want. P.S. There is also a list of buildings at .../terran/bbuild.shtml for basic terran, and .../terran/abuild.shtml for terran advanced buildings. They are organized in a tech tree, and clicking any one gives information about it. There is the same for protoss and zerg.


I don't see what's so valuable about the units. They're important to the gameplay, yes, but not to what the game or universe actually are. Think of it this way, if I were to never have known of StarCraft, and decided to look it up after seeing some mention of it, would I really need to read a description of all the units? It's like deciding to list every single thing that someone says within a book - arguably useful, but only under exceptionally specific circumstances, for which other sources may be more appropriate. Garbeld (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Units are not coming back under any circumstances. They have no real-world impact (beyond the Ghost creating a subseries, this will be addressed in one of the rewrites in progress) and as such do not express any notability out side the game. We had a lengthy AfD session in which consensus was reached to this effect. Including any list of units will end up damaging this article's FA status, not improve it. Any separate articles will not be able to establish notability and would be quite rightly deleted. -- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation CWAL 2

Should we include something about this in here? This has recieved mass attention from old sc vets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

We definatly need to include something about operation cwal its pretty important! Crivers01 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Scroll up. --207.179.172.220 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think they're talking about CWAL for Starcraft 2. It shouldn't be included here, as this article is about Starcraft, not SC2. That, and it's not really notable. I've played Starcraft for years, and have never heard anything about it before here. Parsecboy 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, from what I understand, Operation CWAL relates to a group on Blizzard's forums during the development of the original game, whom are the origin of the campaign cheatcode, "Operation CWAL." If there's another Operation CWAL for StarCraft 2, it's only inspired by/based on the original. I can't remember where I heard this, however, so my word shouldn't be taken for truth here.

Garbeld (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft or Starcraft

This article uses both StarCraft and Starcraft throughout and I was wondering if there was a preference. Given WP:MOSTM it seems that Starcraft would be the preferred form. Theredhouse7 07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:MOSTM states:
Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:
  • OxyContin or Oxycontin — editor's choice
So "StarCraft" is perfectly acceptable. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a note that both "StarCraft" and "Starcraft" are used in official sources.SpectrumDT 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite some official sources that spell Starcraft? In this cases, this should only be Blizzard material since it's their game. A quick look at the StarCraft Compendium only shows the StarCraft variant, not the Starcraft one. A quick look at http://www.blizzard.com/worlds-starcraft.shtml revealed one instance of "Starcraft" in the description of the original but the description of the Battlechest showed StarCraft in which case the "Starcraft" from the original is probably more of a typo never corrected.--Fogeltje 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, but the installation directory defaults to 'C:\Program Files\Blizzard Entertainment\Starcraft', with no camelcase. I don't know what effect this has on the debate... —Akrabbimtalk 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
None really - games can be installed under all kinds of names (ie, Half-Life Opposing Force installs to Valve\Half-Life\gearbox\) and can't be used as reliable evidence, and you should be hard-pressed to find "Starcraft" used anywhere now, it was phased out a good few months ago. -- Sabre (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally StarCraft 2!

The anouncement has been made a new Starcraft is on the way visit http://www.starcraft2.com.

No release date yet and the web site is not yet finished but from what you can see in the web site it is going to be a blast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurdalak (talk • contribs) May 20, 2007

Who Made this Game?

I was going to try and see who, if anyone who made SC1 is going to be involved with SC2. But this article says basically nothing about the people who worked on Starcraft, etc.! I think it should name the key developers and describe their roles. Give credit where credit's due! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.204.139 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2007

Try MobyGames and look to the lower right corner for the credits box. --M.A. 10:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think everyone knows at least Metzen is involved, without even looking at any sources. However, I do agree with you, Developers should be noted within the article. It's like an article on Black Sabbath and not mentioning Ozzy. IronCrow 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

count the countless

No species is to have an innate advantage over any other. This feature has been the subject of countless gameplay tweaks introduced via infrequent updates.

Would be great if "countless" were replaced with "10,440" or whatever. Tempshill 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But who knows that? David Fuchs 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/countless ...

countless 1. Too many to count; innumerable or incalculable

If somebody had the drive to do it, you could obtain a number, so countless is the wrong word. Since I'm not the one to do it, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "numerous" ObsidianOps 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft novel articles should be redirected here

The Starcraft novels do not appear to meet the notability guidelines. I am planning to redirect their articles here if there is no objection. Aaronk24 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think that, nominate them for deletion on those grounds and suggest redirecting the articles to the main StarCraft article. --Fogeltje 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a weak objection. Whilst resoundingly crap at the moment, either containing a stupid amount of plot or barely anything at all, they are on the agenda for drastic improvement. The thing is, most of the other SC universe articles are in a transitional stage with myself and The Clawed One attempting to move them to a satisfactory out-of-universe state (we have not destroyed the articles, we have moved them to sandbox to work on them without unnecessary tampering and deletion notices). This will take a lot of time.
However, one of my two main objectives in regard to the StarCraft section is bringing in full information on the novels and the authorised add-ons. Should they be deleted, I'll eventually create the page again when I've done a rewrite with the proper out-of-universe perspective and all necessary information required by a book article on Wikipedia. However, it is a lot easier to work on a page if it is up on Wikipedia than if it is on a notepad file. I object to the redirect on the basis of convienence, but I'll happily go along with it because I'll eventually get round to the articles and bring them up to comply with notability policy.
Still, put them to a deletion/redirect nomination, we'll see what happens. -- S@bre 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an idea what the articles would be about? I do not think that there are multiple, non-trivial published works about any StarCraft book. Aaronk24 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It only has to fulfil one of the specified criteria, not all - very few books would meet them all. Criteria #3 can be interpreted to apply to novels adapted from notable TV series or games. Whilst extensive commentary under criteria #1 is not likely to be available, reviews are out there and can be used, as can the interviews with the authors from sites like Blizzplanet. The articles will certainly be moved away from the in-universe plot reiterations they are now. -- S@bre 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I googled for a review of Starcraft: Uprising, but could not find one. I looked on Blizzplanet and did not find any reviews or interviews for any Starcraft books there either. Aaronk24 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There are interviews for Starcraft books, a few weeks ago I read an interview with Christie Golden about her new Dark Templar Saga. I can't remember where I read it but it surely is out there. I actually do think it was was Blizzplanet, but I'm not sure. --Fogeltje 07:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Aaronk24, then you didn't look hard enough. Examples from Blizzplanet include:
They are out there, but you have to dig deep. A quick and simple Google search will turn up nothing. Trust me, they exist and when in a few months or so I finish my current obligations to revamping the entire essense of StarCraft universe Wikipedia articles, I'll do the novels. -- ~~

Gameplay (comment moved from body of article)

Moved this here, because I don't like the idea of deleting somebody else's comment, however ungrammatical:

this is a problem caz plp can change what it frist sayed

Landithy 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft The Board Game?

I found these pics on the internet. I know some of you might doubt its authenticity..but..just look at them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 DivineBaboon 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt about their authenticity, some fan sites (such as JudgeHype) were present at the BlizzCon 2007, and according to their site such board game will probably be released soon (more pictures taken at the BlizzCon: 1 2 3), still have a doubt? Then, just visit this link you could partially see at the bottom right on the 3rd image...

--MetalGearLiquid 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Imbalanced article, and proposal to fix

A while back, there was a bunch of material on Starcraft units and strategies. Then there was a great purge under the campaign banner of Wikipedia not being a strategy guide - which was badly needed. However, looking around now, it seems the campaign went overboard. The articles on Starcraft and its three races are overloaded with intricate detail on the plots and characters, which are all relevant only to single-player mode, while there is almost no material on even what the basic units are, which is one of the most important aspect of the game, in either single-player or multi-player mode. The absence is especially significant because probably most game play and notability of Starcraft is in its multi-player mode, not its single-player mode. It's as if you had a long article on chess without ever mentioning that the pieces include a king, a queen, knights, rooks, etc. or how those pieces are different.

I propose we fix this just by at least adding a brief list of the units to each of the three race pages, each with a single short sentence briefly describing the nature of the unit. That would only provide the most basic and undisputedly encyclopedic sort of information about the topic of the articles, and would absolutely not threaten to pollute Wikipedia with verboten "strategy guide" material.

As a secondary matter, it would also help if we trimmed away some of the extensive detail on single-player mode plots and characters.

These concerns are probably true of a lot of other games, though Starcraft is the only one that I have paid attention to.

I'm cross-posting this on the talk pages for Starcraft and its three races plus the video game Wikiproject to draw appropriate attention from potentially concerned users. Please continue the discussion, though at the Video Games Wikiproject talk page, for the sake of a single forum. If consensus ends up running parallel to my proposal here over the next couple weeks, I'll add the units.

- Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a paragraph, instead of a list, would be more appropriate, as you can explain more succinctly and in less space what the units are within the gameplay section. Also, putting a reference in that new paragraph would be great, since this is a featured article and all material should be sourced. Further, I agree that it should be trimmed a little, go for it. Judgesurreal777 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [The preceding comment was copied from here to the Wikiproject talk page, for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)]

Multiplayer Strategies

I could have sworn there was a page for strategies for each race. Is there any consideration about adding this to the SC portal? Did these pages exist but were deleted/removed? Kageskull 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The strategy pages got deleted on the basis that Wikipedia is not a game guide. The SC portal was also deleted because it wasn't well designed, wasn't really suitable for a topic like StarCraft and was just a long-winded way of doing the same job as Template:StarCraft. -- Sabre 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the "not a game guide" movement got a little out of hand with the Starcraft-related articles. Take a look at the articles for chess and Dungeons & Dragons, both of which are featured articles and were coverpage articles, and both of which include nice sections on gameplay and strategy. They give a good example of the kind of information that the articles need to be informative about their subjects, without becoming bloated into "game guide" territory. An analogous section for Starcraft and its related articles is badly needed; you can hardly become informed about Starcraft when the entirety of gameplay and strategy is left as a mystery, equally so as would be the case with chess or D&D. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we plan to have sections that will cover gameplay aspects of the three species for the rewrites of the species pages. Having something discussing strategy isn't automatically a bad thing, but those old SC strategy articles read like a strategy guide, rather than discussing strategy encyclopedically (bare in mind that that whilst Chess is a featured article, chess strategy is only start-class). -- Sabre 19:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

some stratagy should be included as it is part of the game just not too much(Ralon silver 02:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree, the way you play each race is significantly different (Unlike, say, Age of Empires). At least strategy should be dealt with in SOME way, just not a whole guide. IronCrow 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)