Starcarft -- Should I buy the Starcraft Battlechest for $20?

[WhipperSnapper]

About six months ago I bought Sins of a Solar Empire, which was my first ever RTS game, and while I've enjoyed it tremendously, I'm a little disappointed with its online multiplayer limitations and the low player counts.

So I've been wondering. Would I enjoy playing Starcraft? I've been thinking about buying the Starcraft Battle Chest (has the expansion) for $20. However, I feel a bit odd paying $20 for a game that must be nine or ten years old now. Is it still worth it? Are large amounts of North Americans still playing it online? Is the Battle.net system good?

 

[newb111]

Yes buy it. Starcraft is awesome.

 

[Schadenfroh]

If you can handle the low resolution, go for it, good game.

Might I also suggest Command and Conquer Red Alert 1? It is free now and it is my favorite RTS game (along with C&C 1):
http://www.ea.com/redalert/news-detail.jsp?id=62

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Thanks for the Command and Conquer link; I might go check that out sometime.

 

[Dumac]

If you plan on getting SC2, you should get SC1 first. It has a great story, great dialogue, and great gameplay. The only thing that could possibly annoy you is the dated graphics.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is Battle.net still up? Is there still an online multiplayer scene for the game? I just read that the Battle.net ladders had closed--does that mean that it can no longer be played in online mulitplayer (without accessing a private server or some such)?

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Is Battle.net still up? Is there still an online multiplayer scene for the game? I just read that the Battle.net ladders had closed--does that mean that it can no longer be played in online mulitplayer (without accessing a private server or some such)?

Assumption:

Battle.net is still up. Ladders were used for tournament/rankings to record wins/losses.

Based on my knowledge of Diablo2 from a few years ago, that is what I assume has happened with Starcraft. From what I have heard, the playerbase is decently sized so Blizzard would have kept Battle.net up but possibly have removed any form of recording wins/losses or something to that effect to reduce costs on an old game.

I would possibly disagree with Schadenfroh with his suggestion. Free games, of the quality offered by C&C1 and Red Alert are not to be sniffed at however I would be tempted to recommend C&C: First Decade. It contains a large number of the C&C games, everything from C&C1 all the way to Generals and includes expansion packs.

That suggestion would only really work if you were looking into having a real good RTS bash with some nostalgic gaming from ~1995 to 2003ish.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm just looking for some good online multiplayer RTS. If the game no longer records wins and losses then how can you tell whether or not someone is any good and whether or not a game will be balanced? Wasn't one of Battle.net's attributes (for Starcraft) that it would match players up based on their skill levels?

 

[Maximilian]

Yes buy starcraft! Its amazing. Most people just play customs nowadays though because theyre more fun and after 10 years 2v2ing or 3v3ing gets boring. If you have never played starcraft before get it, i also recommend warcraft III its good fun as well.

 

[Vehemence]

All of the Blizzard chests are mandatory plays, no matter the year.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you can handle the low resolution, go for it, good game.

Might I also suggest Command and Conquer Red Alert 1? It is free now and it is my favorite RTS game (along with C&C 1):
http://www.ea.com/redalert/news-detail.jsp?id=62

These are definitely worth trying out now that they're free. I still play RA occasionally with the old TC I made back then, which is a lot of fun in skirmish.

 

[udneekgnim]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I'm just looking for some good online multiplayer RTS. If the game no longer records wins and losses then how can you tell whether or not someone is any good and whether or not a game will be balanced? Wasn't one of Battle.net's attributes (for Starcraft) that it would match players up based on their skill levels?

competitive Starcraft english commentaries: http://www.youtube.com/user/klazartsc?ob=4

also, I definitely recommend picking up the SC Battle Chest for it's single player. Multiplayer wise, I believe there are reports of various resources exploits, map hacks, and disconnect exploits. Also, given the age of the game, I wouldn't expect to many people around at a beginner skill level.

anyways, if you're interested in multiplayer SC, can watch some of the match commentaries of Starcraft to see it played at the highest level. Some of the Korean players have contracts in excess of 100K US a year playing SC.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: newb111
Yes buy it. Starcraft is awesome.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: newb111
Yes buy it. Starcraft is awesome.

x3

 

[Sylvanas]

Starcraft is the best game ever made, of course go buy it.

 

[Eeezee]

Hell yeah, go pick that up and play through the singleplayer campaign!

And then do some multiplayer, although I'm sure by now it's completely dominated by Koreans

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Hell yeah, go pick that up and play through the singleplayer campaign!

And then do some multiplayer, although I'm sure by now it's completely dominated by Koreans

Who know every hotkey in existence and almost never use the mouse. I know a guy like that. Scary.

 

[natep]

it's a good play for $20, but get ready for 640x480.

for more recent, quality RTS playing, I recommend Company of Heroes.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Elcs

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Is Battle.net still up? Is there still an online multiplayer scene for the game? I just read that the Battle.net ladders had closed--does that mean that it can no longer be played in online mulitplayer (without accessing a private server or some such)?

Assumption:

Battle.net is still up. Ladders were used for tournament/rankings to record wins/losses.

Based on my knowledge of Diablo2 from a few years ago, that is what I assume has happened with Starcraft. From what I have heard, the playerbase is decently sized so Blizzard would have kept Battle.net up but possibly have removed any form of recording wins/losses or something to that effect to reduce costs on an old game.

I would possibly disagree with Schadenfroh with his suggestion. Free games, of the quality offered by C&C1 and Red Alert are not to be sniffed at however I would be tempted to recommend C&C: First Decade. It contains a large number of the C&C games, everything from C&C1 all the way to Generals and includes expansion packs.

That suggestion would only really work if you were looking into having a real good RTS bash with some nostalgic gaming from ~1995 to 2003ish.

I also recommend The First Decade, you can work through the games from oldest to newest and it's a good way to ease into RTSs, plus you'll get a lot of play time out of all those titles. And if you do get it, I recommend the Shockwave mod for Generals. Generals was the first (except maybe Renegade, but that doesn't count) Westwood game released after their acquisition by EA, and vanilla Generals sucks, but the Zero Hour expansion is quite good, and the Shockwave mod is better still.

Generals has nothing to do with either the RA or Tiberium story lines, and it's a little more like StarCraft in that you build structures with worker units instead of a centralized construction yard like in the RA and Tiberium games. For those two reasons it's hated by a lot of CnC fans, but I actually prefer it over Red Alert 2 even though it probably shouldn't have the CnC logo on it.

 

[zerocool84]

I lost my Starcraft cd and just bought the Battlechest 6 months ago. It's a game you HAVE to have at all times if you own a computer.

 

[I4AT]

I still play SC casually, if anyone is up for some 1v1s on USEast PM me.