| ▲ | PorciiVorbesc an hour ago |
| >His games don't have the fluff people appear to love(looking at you starcraft) What fluff (of Starcraft) are you referring to? |
|
| ▲ | somat an hour ago | parent [-] |
| Gratuitous cutscenes, annoying barks everywhere, huge useless animated portraits. It is basically the blizzard polish, looks better than it plays. Not that Starcraft plays bad, but none of the fluff contributes to gameplay. And that gameplay takes a lot more micromanagement than it needs to(some people like this. me, not so much). |
| |
| ▲ | philipov an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | None of that has anything to do with why starcraft is popular, though. Starcraft has a long history of organized professional competition, and that's responsible for sustaining interest in the game. | | |
| ▲ | IsTom 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | At first people played Starcraft for the campaign, internet access in late 90s wasn't common enough for a game to thrive on mostly online multiplayer. And it was popular back then. And playing on LAN was more of "20 mins no rush" thing. | |
| ▲ | samplifier an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | So: money, gambling, ego bloating, greed, eye candy, narcotics? |
| |
| ▲ | rvba 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | sound (and lack of it) is something that gives aa lot of balance to the game in brood war you get info when units are made and sounds wben they die. unless an invisible dark templar one shots your units, then no sound also brood war is the better game |
|
