Talk:StarCraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the StarCraft article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Featured article star StarCraft is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2006.
A summary of this article appears in StarCraft (series).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified StarCraft as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Korean language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4
About archives

Contents

[edit] MSL & OSL

The Multiplayer section mentions MSL and OSL, which I gather are leagues. Anyone care to define them? --dinomite 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zerging

I think a note should be added about Starcrafts affect on the way RTS's are played, but adding Zerging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.11.203 (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's a good idea... Just about every RTS uses that phrase, even non RTS games (I've seen it used in WoW). IronCrow 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki

What's about the wiki? Amakthea computer 15:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The StarCraft wiki cannot be considered reliable or stable, and therefore is in breach of WP:EL as an external link and can't be put down. Sorry. -- Sabre 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why. Can you explain it further? Amakthea computer 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's almost completely unreferenced, is unstable in that it's content has been known to shift drastically, and contains multiple instances of faulty information, speculation and misinformed deduction. Having open wikis in that state as external links is in breach of WP:EL. -- Sabre 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Think of it as being a Wikipedia for Starcraft without the sources like this Wikipedia. Or, rather, think of it as just another user-edited website, like Punknews.org. IronCrow 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artanis

On the Blizzard site they have released a recap article for Starcraft's episodes I, II, and III. It reveals that the player character (The Executor)in the Protoss campaign is actually Artanis. Someone ought to update the page citing his name. 72.234.46.115 (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X addition

I just made a small edit in the beginning of the page. I mentioned how Starcraft can be run on Mac OS X and i mentioned how the world editer can only be run on Classic. Could somebody please add a reference? thks GlassDesk (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Its far better to provide a reference to that effect before adding the information. The burden of evidence is on you, rather than simply putting in the statement and then asking someone else to reference it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sry, but my parents have a internet proxy server that doesnot allow me 2 access many sites, such as one where i may find a reference for my statement. I would but I cant. sry :( GlassDesk (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starcraft TV

I think that we need a larger section on Starcraft TV in South Korea. ALl I saw was a small line about Starcraft TV near the end of the article. Starcraft TV is a very big part of the South Korean gaming lifestyle. Let me know if I can apply a section on SC TV. GlassDesk (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean spelling should be added

I think at the beginning of this article it should be mentioned it's called 스타크래프트 in Korean which is transliterated as Seutakeuraepeuteu.

That is not needed. Unlike games like Final Fantasy and Mario, which are made in the Far East, StarCraft is an American game, produced by a US company which naturally speaks English. The fact that it has a large following in Korea is irrelevant to that. -- Sabre (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9.5millions??

Where is the citation for the sells figure of 9.5 millions. The citation provided is old and only say 1.5 millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.228.141 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference number 3, used in the intro. Page 4, under the title "Group Assets". States: "Franchise successes:... StarCraft from Blizzard (owned -- over 9.5MM units sold since 1998)" And its only 18 or so months old. -- Sabre (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disk space requirements

Could we get the requirements to list how much disk space is required to install and properly run the game? Mathiastck (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Windows 95/98/NT

Pentium 90 or higher 16 MB RAM DirectX-Compatible SVGA Video Card Microsoft-Compatible Mouse Double-Speed CD-ROM (Quad Speed for Cinematics)

Macintosh PowerMac or Compatible 16 MB RAM System 7.6 or higher 256 Color, 640x480 Display or Better Double-Speed CD-ROM (Quad Speed for Cinematics) Source is here Esper rant 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait. That's not what you were asking. It's 80MB, according to this siteEsper rant 05:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leopard?

Does starcraft run on Mac OS Leopard? (The new one) The article doesn't say so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.247.101 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Warhammer 40,000 references?

I could have sworn I once saw references on this page, perhaps in a Criticism section, to Starcraft being somewhat derivative of Warhammer 40,000. I am not a tabletop Warhammer player (I dabble in the Dawn of War series on the PC), nor am I precious about that IP, however I do think many of the similarities are noteworthy: use of the term "Space Marine"; visual look of the space marines, power armor/genetic modfication; Zerg very similar to Tyranids; etc. Was this setion removed? Does anyone else see the parallels or am I crazy? It seems to me that it's fair to say that Starcraft, brilliant as it is, borrows quite a bit from Warhammer 40,000 (and by the looks of the movies I've seen, Starcraft 2 continues this trend). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There probably was once, but I imagine such a section was removed due to being original research that was probably only the opinion of whoever wrote it. I've trawled through a good number of reviews for writing SC articles, and I've not come across any criticism (or mention) of SC's simularities to Warhammer. -- Sabre (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I do recall that it was at least mentioned in the article, but I don't know what ever happened to it. S@bre is probably correct as to its fate. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I removed it. There are no reliable sources which say that the various resemblances are anything more than a coincidence. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an IGN article that can be used as a source.[1] Dawn of War really blew the lid on what most people (myself included) assumed was Blizzard's originality. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It can't really be taken as a widespread criticism as such, the article itself is more focused on the revolutionary aspects within the genre of the two games: StarCraft was the benchmark RTS game of its time with its three unique races, Dawn of War was the benchmark RTS of its time as well with its new resource system(I say "was" because Relic raised the benchmark within a short time with Company of Heroes and units taking cover system). The key phrase in it seems to be this by one of Relic's guys: "I see StarCraft and Dawn of War as really paying homage to one another. StarCraft was obviously influenced by the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and Dawn of War, being an RTS, was obviously influenced by StarCraft." This sort of stuff strikes me as being a more useful addition to the development section. -- Sabre (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date?

In their 10 years of StarCraft announcement ( http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/10-years-starcraft.html ) Blizzard quoted a release date of 31 March for StarCraft. The article says 1 April. What is the source of this date? Any other explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaibStilgar (talk • contribs) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor graphics?

From my personal experience Starcraft's graphic was good enough in comparison to other RTS games in the same time, effects like cloaking and smoke were the first of its kind, I think. It's probably the best one can get under the condition of those days (640x480 & 256 color & no graphic cards). Of course it's not a match to today's games, but that's more of a issue about the improvement of hardwares esp. 3D-cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.10.71 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but a number of reviewers picked up on the graphics as a bad point, which is why it is mentioned. -- Sabre (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft Precursor

StarCraft Precursor has been nominated for deletion, and suggested to be merged here. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sprotected for over 6 months???!

Why is this article sprotected for over 6 months, and missing the protected template saying that it's protected? 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected presumably as it has been subject to a high proportion of vandalism over the months/years. As for the template, I've added that. -- Sabre (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by User: Ashnard

Okay, per S@bre's request, I'll look over the article, I'll review it as if it were an FAC:

  • There are cases when a full stop is used in captions that are not full sentences.
  • "StarCraft is a military science fiction real-time strategy video game by Blizzard Entertainment". Developed by?
  • "; and the psionic humanoid Protoss warriors." I'm not sure about this, but I don't think you should use a semi-colon before a connective (and). Replace with comma?
  • I think it would be preferable to mention that it won multiple awards and accolades in the lead, rather than single specific ones out.
  • Lead should be expanded to mention gameplay and development, per WP: LEAD
  • What's "vespene gas"? Explain or wikilink please.
  • The second sentence here is just short. Perhaps you could use "control of two resources: minerals and vespene gas, which are harvested by worker units." for better flow.
  • This section has no sources—it needs to be cited.
  • Describing what he gas and minerals look like seems pretty useless to me.
  • "Each of a player's units". Can this not be reworded to "each playable unit" or simply "each unit".
  • "or units particular to each race." At this point, the races hadn't been referred to except the lead, so this needs to be explained at this point.
  • "In standard games, the maximum amount of supply that can be used at any time for each controlled race is two hundred, limiting the total number of units any player may have." Stating the actual number is meaningless to a general audience. Simplify to mention that there is a set limit to supply.
  • "The selection of units available to each species defines its racial identity." Doesn't make sense to me; may need rewording.
  • " that can be very effective when used in formations". Although it probably isn't the case, you sound like you're delving into WP: GAMEGUIDE here.
  • "The balance between species has been the subject of numerous gameplay tweaks introduced via infrequent patches." save this for "Development". "Gameplay" is used solely to establish how the game is played.
  • "Resource management, expansion to control resource locations, and effective offensive and defensive combat tactics are key to victory". Again, reword to make it sound like it isn't WP: GAMEGUIDE. Same for the subsequent sentences.
  • "Many fans, especially casual players, enjoy playing in groups against computer-controlled opponents, as well as on teams against one another. Games between players with no computer-controlled opponent tend to be a bit more challenging since adding the human aspect makes the opponents' next move unpredictable. Since experienced players generally do not find the artificial intelligence of the game challenging, fans have also created maps that are advantageous to the computer and can be extremely hard to win." Unsourced. Trivial. OR. You should delete the whole thing.
  • The exact same problems "In multiplayer gameplay, some players use modified or "hacked" versions of the StarCraft client to gain an unfair advantage. Some players also use illegitimate programs to gain other unfair advantages such as commanding more than twelve units at once, no fog of war, infinite resources, and other unfair ways of winning. Blizzard attempts to detect and ban those who modify their client software, and several third-party "anti-hack" programs are under constant development to prevent these hacks. In 2003, Battle.net closed over four hundred thousand accounts for cheating and hacking."
  • Things that don't explain how "multiplayer" is played, but only talk "about" it should be reserved for another section, probably leagcy. This applies specifically to the third paragraph. But again, you're going to have to wipe out all the trivia. I won't say any more about this section , but has major problems in regards to this. If we were to reserve the encyclopaedic information, not much would be there.
  • "StarCraft Campaign Editor" shouldn't have its own section. Again, cut out things that aren't related to gameplay.
  • "StarCraft takes place in the distant future." Mmmm....none-the-wiser. Is a year stated?
  • "Human exiles fight for survival on the edge of the galaxy," Survival from what? Who or what are they fighting?
  • "The plot of the original StarCraft game". Why not just say StarCraft?
  • I'm not going to delve too deeply into plot and characters, just try to makle it more concise, avoid redundancies and cut out jargon.
  • More citations needed in general.
  • "The StarCraft storyline is carried by multiple positively received characters." How can a character carry a storyline?
  • In "Development" starting the section with another game is confusing. Restructure "Blizzard implemented ..., which was a result of..."
  • "The pre-alpha version of StarCraft was still very similar to Warcraft II in terms of user interface and style." OR without a source.
  • "StarCraft, which appeared obviously completed despite numerous delays on the part of Blizzard Entertainment." Again, without a source this is OR.
  • Third paragraph seems like trivia. Seems like it's been used to substantiate a short "development" section.
  • The problem with "development" is that there isn't actually much information on development of the game. One paragraph is dedicated to an expansion, while another is dedicated to a forum group.

Taking a rest. Will resume review later today. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Review resumed:

  • "Around the same time". Isn't good enough. Establish a proper time-scale.
  • Conflict of BrE and AmE: "authorise" and "center". You then proceed to write "authorise" the American way (Booooo)
  • Have you got a more formal way to say "add-on"?
  • "full length" should be hyphenated.
  • "The game was not as popular as the PC version, perhaps because of the clumsiness of the N64 controller compared to a mouse and the lack of online multiplayer capabilities (split-screen multiplayer option was included, however)." OR. Needs a source.
  • "Also, speech during mission briefings was omitted". Any indication of why?
  • "in a classic example of". Omit "classic" here.
  • Cut out the redundant "alsos".
  • "originally slated ". Don't use such colloquialisms/informal language.
  • "A number of Easter eggs can be unlocked during and after completion of Warcraft III which relate to StarCraft, leading many to sequel speculation.[26]" Speculation, speculation. So what? Especially as it's fan-based.
  • "and the fact that there are several unannounced titles also being developed, suggested that Blizzard was working on another real-time strategy game, possibly StarCraft II." Need I say it?
  • The Mobygames score is given a score in the normal table, eventhough it's based on a compilation, like Gamerankings.
  • In Reception, three consecutive sentence start with "as of". This is not engaging prose.
  • StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world. Such a claim needs multiple strong sources, nit just PC World.
  • WP:DASH—spaced endashes or unspaced endashes.
  • "Reception" is severely lacking. There is barely any commentary from reviews or information like that.
  • Legacy section gives the game no coverage outside SK
  • Reserve external links for the external link sections—they should not be embedded into the main text.
  • "2" and "11" should be written out in full.

This article has major issues considering it's an FA, including lack of sources, poor writing, and OR. However, it's nothing that some TLC can't remedy. Just make sure that the article undergoes a major clean-up, beacuse this would be a contender for FAR otherwise. Happy editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say "ouch, that's a heck of a lot", but I had a good idea that the list would be this long. Mind you, I look at the version that was put up for FAC originally and passed and I wonder how it managed to get there in the first place. Thanks Ashnard, looks like my work is cut out for a while to come. -- Sabre (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Needs some context for Pro Gamers Tour or World Gamers Tour. Are they professional teams? When did they form? Popularity?
  • It is opposed by other factions – is there a reason? Blind hatred?
  • My eyes are glossing over already. This was a problem in Brood War as well.
  • What is a Terran? Why is Kerrigan undergoing metamorphosis?
  • Zerg cerebrates can be almost immediately reincarnated by the Overmind – why does this matter?
  • The characters that do exert influence generally first appear in one of the Blizzard-developed games, although characters have emerged into the games from the novels. flat out original observation
  • Most of the main characters in the StarCraft series are playable at some point within the game to some degree. again NOR
  • I'm confused by the plot. Does the player jump to multiple perspectives? Like, are they Terrans in the first one, and another race in the second episode? This isn't quite fully explained.

That's about it. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that based on this, it may be easier for me to take the article to sandbox and rewrite it to avoid all these problems, using our more recent RTS FA's (Supreme Commander comes to mind) as exemplars. -- Sabre (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

Since Ashnard's review highlighted numerous issues with the article that would have taken a long time to sort out in order to justify the article's FA status, I've rewritten the article in an attempt to avoid getting the issues in the first place. The previous talk page has been archived. -- Sabre (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

one of my questions was what does Kerrigan do to the plot? Do her increased powers help out in any way? It seems to be a hole – sacrificed in the first episode, reborn in the second, and then...nothing. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Kerrigan doesn't really do much in this game. It is pretty much the case that she's infested, has a few missions in the game and then isnt seen again. However, it is necessary to mention her as in later products, she is elevated as a far more important character, becoming the overriding antagonist of the series. If it was not for this, Kerrigan could be interpreted as a minor character, but her significance in later works means it has to be mentioned. -- Sabre (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Not sure if it would be prudent to clarify this or not. Is it the role of the plot section to clarify every question the reader may have, or is that what the wiki-link is for? It seems a bit...jerky to just throw that in there. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's best left to the wikilink. I don't think its appropriate to go into several other products to fully explain it here, but I do agree that it seems a bit disjointed. I just can't think of any other way to implement it without skewing the balance of the section. Its a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh huh. I did a search for "px|" and only got two of them. MOS recommends it based on the fact that not everybody noawadays has a big 800x600 screen. Sorry about the soundtrack removal, I don't know how that happened – perhaps I loaded an old version of the article? YOu did it at least two hours before I did my edit, so I don't know what happened, but I assure you that I would never consciously remove a whole section without explaining why (such as "gamecruft" or "game guide," usaully those two reasons). hbdragon88 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a slight issue with this phrase, and more specifically the GameSpot question: "In addition, StarCraft's pioneering use of three distinct, unique and balanced races over two equal sides was praised by critics,[3] with GameSpot commenting that this helped the game to "avoid the problem that has plagued every other game in the genre".[4]"

What problem? It is never stated explicitly in text in that specific sentence, nor is it stated in the sentences above and below. I didn't check to see what the actual "problem" was, but it's obviously touched on in the context... --Izno (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem that plagues many other RTS games is having two equal sides that have essentially the same units/capabilities (for example, Warcraft II has this problem). Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot element retcons

So instances of Terran Confederacy et al were recently changed to Confederacy of Man, presumably for parity with the SC2 plot. This should be reverted. The plot of SC1 shouldn't be retroactively altered in light of the sequel; it confuses things. The article for the sequel should note changes in continuity explicitly, in keeping with our guidelines on not presenting plot information from an in-universe perspective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Its used as both throughout the series - "Confederacy of Man" was around years long before StarCraft II was announced. However, since "Confederacy of Man" has become more prominent than "Terran Confederacy" in usage in both novels and games, its better to keep it at that for consistency's sake. I'm sorry, I just don't agree there. There's nothing in-universe or confusing about it, its just keeping everything consistent. To my knowledge the phrase "Terran Confederacy" is only used sparingly within the whole series (its used once in the game manual), while practically everything else including the game itself calls it either the "Confederacy of Man" or just the "Confederacy". I think my use of "retcon" in the edit summaries was perhaps misleading. -- Sabre (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right, cool. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Pack

The article states that Starcraft has 3 "expansion packs". According to http://www.battle.net/scc/faq/general.shtml Starcraft has 1 expansion pack (ie Brood War) and two third-party "add-on packs". I do not believe the article is correct in stating that Starcraft has 3 "expansion packs" and is misleading in stating that it does. Maybe I'm missing something. I think it depends on what we call an expansion pack and what we don't. Maybe the article should read something like "Starcraft has one official expansion pack, Brood War, and two Blizzard acknoweledged third-party add-on packs: Insurrection and Retribution. It also has a sequel in development." Any thoughts? MTWCaputo (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the statement may be misleading, the definition of a expansion pack could be found at the article Expansion Pack. In it states, "These add-ons usually add new game areas, weapons, objects, and/or an extended storyline to a complete and already released game." When you read the current article, it suggests that Insurrection and Retribution are on the same grounds as Blizzard's official release of Brood War. This is inaccurate, such that they were made by a third party and later authorized by Blizzard. In my opinion, I agree that the current wording could be much improved to explicitly state that Brood War is the official expansion pack to Starcraft while there exists two third party created expansion packs namely, Insurrection and Retribution. Flarous (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically I would see Insurrection and Broodwar as add-ons. But to state that they can't be viewed as expansions because they were third-party made is not true. The only official expansion for Diablo is also third-party made, but sanctioned by Blizzard. Same with Insurrection and Retribution. I'm not sure where to officially draw the line between expansion and add-on.--Fogeltje (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they should be viewed as add-ons even though the Expansion Pack article uses them as synonyms. It would be fair to say that they are expansions, but I think it could be more specifically stated as an add-on to distinguish between a official release and third party releases. On the Battle.net website linked above, it clearly makes the distinction that add-ons and expansions are not the same thing. If we opt out the definition of "Expansion Pack", then it would be suitable to distinguish Brood War from Insurrection and Retribution. Flarous (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of keeping the introduction simple, its better to leave it at "three expansion packs". "With its storyline adapted and expanded through a series of novels, StarCraft has one official expansion pack and two authorised add-ons available and a sequel in development." or some variation on that is needlessly overcomplicated for what is only a summary of later detail, where the full distinction between the authorised expansions and Brood War is made (official is only used in the section to refer to Brood War). In any case, an add-on is at its rawest form an expansion pack. The word "add-on" was dropped because the to-avoid-FA-review-reviewer thought that it was not very formal - and therefore not appropriate - terminology, which is why "expansion pack" is used. And some references would need to be produced to convince me that Blizzard only authorised Insurrection and Retribution "later". I also don't buy the "Blizzard didn't make it" argument, as Blizzard didn't entirely make Brood War either, Saffire did most of the design. -- Sabre (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
True on Saffire, that slipped my mind. And you are right in saying that add-ons are in essence expansions. I also favour to keep the current introduction and just say "three expansions" in order to keep it simple to the reader.--Fogeltje (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I also concur with keeping it as is, per the arguments listed by S@bre. The differences are minor enough to not warrant making the wording more complex when it can be suitably explained in the relevant section. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Game engine

Starcraft uses the Starcraft game engine, not the Warcraft II.--71.179.235.178 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the two games do look quite substantially different, StarCraft does actually run on a very heavily modified Warcraft II engine. Its documented in the development section. -- Sabre (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)