Talk:StarCraft: Brood War

Vandalism

There's been some minor vandalism lately... no protection, but watch this page because I imagine it'll get a little more traffic than usual because of the announcement of Starcraft 2. -  Ennuified  talk   00:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

Though still a B, this article shouldn't take too much work to get it to Good Article-status. Here are some points you may want to consider to get there:

• Make sure you've sourced everything (unless it's common knowledge): WP:CITE.
• Reception section needs expansion. Currently this section discusses three different reviews: increasing the number of reviews (of which there should be no shortage, given the popularity of the game) would be a good way to increase the size, providing the inclusion of each review is justified. Also, go into more depth: why was the game so positively received? Were there any criticisms, and if so what were they?
• Any information for a development section? Look at some VG Featured Articles to get an idea of what sort of information should go here.
• The Gameplay section is labelled with a stub tag. Per WP:NOT#GUIDE, Gameplay sections should only contain information useful to people who don't play the game. You've already got StarCraft#Gameplay, so you don't need to explain in too much depth how the unchanged game mechanics work when you can just put {{main|StarCraft#Gameplay}} at the top of the section.
• The Story section is unsourced and getting a little on the long side. Per the aforementioned WP:NOT#GUIDE, you don't need to go into the details of the story. Take any of these out.
• After doing all that, you may want to expand the lead section per WP:LS: try to include an element of each section in it.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 21:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps significantly.

• I'm not sure if I can get rid of any further plot details: I cut them back from this version, and Larrythefunkyferret has also given it a try, but we can't seem to get it quite as short as we would like: ie, like on the StarCraft article. I'd appreciate some additional help getting it cut back.
• As far as sourcing the story goes, my main source that I've been using for such citations in the character articles (SC Legacy) currently has its transcripts down. I've been assured by their webmaster that the transcripts will be put up again soon, and will source the story section when they are restored.
• I don't know if any significant information on development is available: I've been trying to dig up development stuff for the characters and novels for months, and have not come across anything Brood War related. Blizzard don't seem to have talked much about the development side of things.

Incoming, an article I recently rewrote, passed its Good Article even though it's lacking a development section, because there wasn't any information available to me. If you have no information, then you'll probably get away with not having this section. Una Laguna^Talk 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is it fair game to reference gameplay information with reviews?

Go for it. It's preferable than using a primary source (such as the game's manual). Una Laguna^Talk 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Sabre 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Title

Shouldent the title be Starcraft Broodwar? I would like to know if there is supposed 2 be a colon between the words starcraft and broodwar? I used 2 have the CD case but i dont anymore. Somebody please check. GlassDesk (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first three words of proper text here answer your question. Its supposed to be StarCraft: Brood War. -- Sabre (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for all the commotion. GlassDesk (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Strategies

Would it be allowable to add a new gameplay strategy section? If not, can you tell me why or where I could post it (on Wikipedia of course)RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Strategies are not appropriate on Wikipedia, it is not encyclopedic to give views and instructions on how to play a game. See: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a guide, No original research and Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. The basic overview of this is nicely summed up in this template: {{game}}. There is no place on Wikipedia for this, but you may find somewhere like StarCraft Wikia may accept it. -- Sabre (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A simple "no" would have sufficed :P RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Development

I've added some development information based on the single preview of the game I could find, and I had to dig that out of the Internet archives. If anyone comes across any other previews with useful development information, please note them here. -- Sabre (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft sucks, and so do these comments (but hopefully they help)

• "These seemingly minor changes are designed to make rushing tactics impractical" - I've heard of "rushing" but I never got around to caring what it is. So I'm clueless here...a brief summary of what it is the first time you mention it would be good...
• "The single-player campaign..." - missing an s (plural for campaigns)

Otherwise, gameplay mostly looks good and reads OK. Will take a look at sypnosis after looking at my current FAC...priorities and all! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rushing is a tactic where rather than building up your base you try and build a small fighting force very quickly and then get to your opponent before they are ready to defend against them and hence win the game very quickly. Plugwash (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That does not help readers of the article. But anyone familiar with RTS games should be familiar with the term, so I don’t think explanation is necessary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:StarCraft: Brood War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial comments

A quick glance at the article did not reveal any major problems; over the next few hours I'll review it more carefully. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More comments

I'll add my assessments of the article under the various criteria below as I finish them.

Style (criterion 1)

There is one major concern: the Plot section only partially complies with the guide to writing about fiction. While the first paragraph is very good and in compliance, the second and third paragraphs are not so good. Specifically, they take a more in-universe style. This is not appropriate for a computer game, because an important part of the genre is player control of the action. Notice that the first paragraph tells the story as the player sees it (for example, "the player joins Zeratul and Artanis in an operation to recover two key crystals necessary to operate the temple".) In the second paragraph, the player's role is only mentioned at the beginning, and particularly during Duran's betrayal it becomes unclear where the player is involved. (The player doesn't help Stukov rebuild the psi disruptor, for example, but does help Duran take over it, and then turns against Duran again. All this needs to be clarified.) In the third paragraph, the player is not mentioned at all.

To fix this, basically just rewrite paragraphs 2 and 3 in the style of paragraph 1.

Nothing else really serious here. The article seems to comply with the MOS. The section Plot does have three moderately long paragraphs, but on the whole I'd say it's of a reasonable length. The three-paragraph organization makes sense, given that there are three campaigns, so I don't think this should really be changed (and indeed, doing so would interfere with the resolution of the above complaint). Perhaps if another good image could be found and introduced on the left-hand side there, that would break it up a bit visually. Not a huge concern.

The final paragraph of the article (Legacy) has a few short sentences in a row, making it a bit choppy. I may fix this myself, but anyone is welcome to beat me to it.

Overall, On Hold pending more complete WP:WAF compliance. As I noted above, the guideline is very important here. The offending paragraphs would probably be fine in the case of a movie, but since there is interactivity here, we need to be a little bit more explicit about that. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try tommorrow if I have the time; unfortunately I'm a little busy at the moment. -- Sabre (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to argue against this on the basis of length and style. In comparison to StarCraft#Plot, this plot section is already long enough (too long in my mind), and I can't add more information without increasing the length even further to unacceptable levels. The actual activities of the player characters in Brood War have even less of a significance than they did in StarCraft, and in the StarCraft article the actual activities of the player are only sparsely referred to: they simply take up too much room when the focus of the game is not on what the player characters are doing, but what the other characters are doing, there's not as much interactivity with the plot as you might think. Personally, I've tried to cut down, rewrite or otherwise improve the plot section several times over now, to get it to the level of the plot section in StarCraft, but even with the opinions and help of other editors who are far better than me at this stuff (User:Silver Edge, User:David Fuchs, User:Giggy and User:Larrythefunkyferret to name a few), I've not had the luck I would like. I'm afraid I cannot do anything further with the plot section and still make it read decently. If anyone else wants to have a try, they're more than welcome to, but I've unfortunately reached my limit for that particular section. -- Sabre (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot. I'll probably come back and revise. For the most part, it still reads all right, but there are a few sentences that I think got a bit clunky. I'll go back and fix them, or someone else can. Anyway, I'm just about ready to pass the article. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Attribution/Verification (criterion 2)

This looks good. Although the Plot section has no citations (well... one), that should be okay. The only real question I have is about the Cincinnati Inquirer review. Is that paper known for having high-quality gaming reviews? And, if not, why exactly was this review chosen for inclusion? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in there, but I'm just wondering whether there might be an even better source available.

Overall, pass. Citations check out. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Coverage (criterion 3)

Coverage is fine. Good summary style. Comparing this article to StarCraft, which is an FA, the breadth of coverage is the same but the level of detail is less. This is fine, because SC:BW is only an expansion, and not a full game. If the article is to be improved to FA standard it might be desirable to add a little bit more detail, but for GA this is perfectly fine.

Overall, pass. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality (criterion 4)

Neutrality in an article like this comes in two types: first, reviews must be fairly selected to represent the diversity of views, and second, the article must not read like an advertisement. The article passes on both counts. The only potential issue here is that the only negative review included is bundled in a paragraph with a positive review. This, to some extent, hides the negative review, because someone skimming based on the first sentences would miss it. I'm not very worried about this, but when I finally get around to making my improvements to the article, I may deal with that.

Overall, pass. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stability (criterion 5)

Looking at the edit history, User:S@bre has largely controlled the article. Under some circumstances this might be considered a problem, but that user's changes seem productive (as do the changes of other recent editors, with the exception of some blatant vandalism). I don't see any edit wars going on at this time, and I don't expect one to develop during this review process.

Overall, then, pass. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Images (criterion 6)

The first thing I noticed when looking at this article was that all the images were fair-use images. This is okay for a Good Article, and the images have accepted fair-use rationales. Additional images are not necessary to pass this review process, but might improve the article -- for example, an image of a Korean SC tournament, or of some people playing a casual game (perhaps along the lines of Image:Go_pros_and_amateurs.jpg, which is from the GA Go (board game)). On the other hand, such an image might be better placed in the StarCraft article.

The captions are also good.

Overall, pass. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Final notes

This article still needs the changes listed under Criterion 1. As a result, this nomination will be placed On Hold until those changes are completed. At that time, I will pass the article. Questions/comments/suggestions are welcome. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I think we're good to go. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion of two expansions: Retribution_(StarCraft) and Insurrection (StarCraft)

Found at: Talk:Retribution_(StarCraft)#Merge_of_article.

travb (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Engine?

I thought they made their own engine for SC1, isnt that why it came so late? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.171.214 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a heavily modified WC2 engine. See the SC article for more detail. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Starcraft in Korea

I'm surprised that this article did not talk about Korea and how Starcraft is a national sport there. Hopefully these two would help to expand this type of section.

http://go.galegroup.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA207462000&v=2.1&u=ko_acd_uoo&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1

and

http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/1021057167?pq-origsite=summon --Edsantos0107 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to re-read the article. Korea is mentioned several times here and in the parent article for the series. It's even in the lead. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on StarCraft: Brood War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030161639/http://uk.gamespot.com/mac/strategy/starcraftbroodwar/index.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/mac/strategy/starcraftbroodwar/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403171122/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=3469 to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=3469
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207031943/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraftexpansionsetbw/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs%3Breviews to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraftexpansionsetbw/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs%3Breviews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202060802/http://rossignol.cream.org/?p=284 to http://rossignol.cream.org/?p=284

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on StarCraft: Brood War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113124725/http://www.battle.net/scc/OS/enslavers.shtml to http://www.battle.net/scc/OS/enslavers.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macworld.com/1999/12/features/gamehalloffame.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511182154/http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/starcraft_brood_war to http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/starcraft_brood_war
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cdmag.com/articles/017/163/best_of_year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft: Brood War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127235347/http://cyber-sports.net/node/23427 to http://cyber-sports.net/node/23427

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

• Backstab #15

207.229.139.154 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)