Talk:StarCraft (video game)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

The MSL and the OSL are the two KeSPA sanctioned individual Starleagues. The third is the GSL, the most recent one, and not KeSPA sanctioned. They stand for MBC StarLeague, Ongamenet StarLeague, and GomTV StarLeague. Unlike the Proleague, in which teams compete in a Bo5, the MSL, OSL, and GSL are individuals competing against each other. Historically, the OSL is considered the most prestigious of the two. 75.84.79.173 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This cannot possibly be true, since Artanis himself addresses the player as "Executor". Artanis is the "Recently appointed Praetor", which would replace Fenix, not the player. 75.34.101.227 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a retcon. It might not make sense, but its Blizzard's story so they can mess around with the canon as much as they like. Consequently, the player characters in StarCraft and Brood War have been written out, they don't "exist" within current StarCraft canon. Its all represented in these two articles, [1] [2], the retconned stories of StarCraft and Brood War on the StarCraft II site. -- Sabre (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why could it not make sense? It always made perfect sense to me. Artanis was the Executor in the original campaign (the player character). He then became Praetor to replace Fenix and then new player character becomes the new Executor, hence Artanis addressing the player as such.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that all player characters were removed from canon, not just the ones in StarCraft. Note in the second article Artanis is still doing the same as the player's character in Brood War, the UED captain is a combination of Stukov, DuGalle and Duran, while the Zerg cerebrate's actions are all Kerrigan. No mention of a promotion to praetor is made within the second article, implying that in canon Artanis is executor the whole time, and is not a praetor. But as I said, its their intellectual property, they're entitled to play around with it if they want to. -- Sabre (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it even possible that people can be this ignorant? The Executors of original StarCraft and Brood War are different individuals! After the death of the Overmind, Artanis' rank was changed to.. er, I don't remember the new rank. Anyway, the Executor of Brood Was is a different one than the one of the original StarCraft, who is Artanis. :Starshade17 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[3] 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)

I heard a rumor that some core Blizzard employee(s) (no names were mentioned when I heard this) wanted to make an RTS version of Warhammer 40K or Warhammer Fantasy, but were denied access by Games Workshop (the company behind Warhammer 40K). The rumor goes that they made a few changes to the Warhammer (Fantasy?) universe to create their own rendition of it in real time -- can anyone check on this? I'm not fussy about IPs either, nor do I blame Blizzard for capitalizing on a good idea (orcs and humans in an RTS setting), but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of it.

That being said, though Starcraft DOES share many thematic and visual similarities with Warhammer 40K (space marines in powered armor, ravenous alien swarms with a collective consciousness, ancient psychic races, etc.), it should be noted that the Starcraft Alpha and Pre-Alpha were far different than the Beta and the final product in terms of appearance and content. Though correlation doesn't imply causation, it would appear that Blizzard implemented these Warhammer 40K-like changes as the Starcraft content and storyline evolved -- convergent evolution, perhaps (the process by which two entirely different organisms evolve similar traits due to environmental stress). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.72.185 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Starcraft borrows far more heavily from Aliens - to the point where some units, particularly the dropship, quote the film word for word. The Zerg, and misguided Terran attempts to weaponise them, are also very reminiscent of that film, although all those themes are even older (starship troopers, etc). The similarities with warhammer 40k mostly stem from that game borrowing from aliens/starship troopers as well. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On the origins of StarCraft and the Warhammer 40,000 thing

To state things simply: As a universe, StarCraft is Warhammer 40,000 remixed. 90% of the material (armies, units, species, weapons, game mechanics and concepts) is taken straight off WH40K and spread among StarCraft's three factions. This statement, while it can sound like original research and personal opinion, is a fact. Until someone publishes a thesis on the origins of StarCraft in an established peer reviewed journal or gets a very honest and revealing interview from the folks at Blizzard we can't use it - but a fact it is. Anyone who has knowledge of both gaming universes can see that - and it is trivial to point one's finger at specific passages in WH40K rulebooks and StarCraft units.

StarCraft, just like both Warhammer settings (and of course WarCraft), was lovingly crafted by veteran gamers that were fans of other franchises before they made their own. In creating their worlds they included references, in-jokes, homages and the occasional blatant rip-off. In the case of StarCraft they took this to an extreme, but always in a very creative and ultimately succesful way. The similarities are by no means a coincidence, and the creators themselves include thanks to their sources in StarCraft's end credits. Now, while Hayao Miyazaki probably wouldn't sue them for his Reaver, Games Workshop, a company that is very active in defending their intellectual property, might be a different story - especially if the story about Blizzard originally working on a Warhammer game is true - so i guess they got left out of the credits. Now that Blizzard and Games Workshop are in direct competition we'll have to wait a good long time before everyone can speak freely on the matter.

THE IMPORTANT PART: The question is not wheather StarCraft borrowed most of its content from Warhammer 40,000; it did, and this is very easy to point out to anyone with in-depth knowledge of both settings. The question is what is the best way to present this information in the Wikipedia article of StarCraft, and should we present it at all? I'll attempt to gather some arguements here for and against presenting it. Bya all means add your own and let's discuss this (for the recrd, i personally think it should be included in the article but i don't know how to do it in a Wikipedia appropriate manner).

FOR:

• It is a big and often talked about part of StarCraft's origins.
• In light of the recent popularity of Warhammer games, many people are unaware of gaming history and there is the persistent misconception that "GW ripped off Blizzard".
• Warhammer is a culturally significant game (even more so in the computer game world in the past few years) and it should be mentioned - it is not an obscure or trivial reference.
• The Wikipedia articles on Warhammer, D&D, and other games contain similar sections. Where the inspiration or borrowing is obvious, which is in most cases, they do not provide a source or reference.Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons, Warhammer Fantasy (setting). Those articles point out inspiration and borrowing from existing sources.

AGAINST:

• Unless a specific list of detailed descriptions is included, it is a pretty big statement and it can be hard to convey to the layman that "StarCraft copied Warhammer 40,000". It does require knowledge of both settings that goes beyond a simple playthrough.
• Because so much of the inspiration material comes from one source, it is hard to NOT make it sound like "StarCraft copied Warhammer 40,000".
• Because it is not something that can be presented with one simple piece of irrefutable evidence , it is often a touchy subject that can spark arguements. For the same reason it may be seen as violating NPOV.
• Nowdays that Games Workshop and Blizzard are in more or less direct competition (does that make it more notable?) there might be reaction from the companies.

It is very important to note that the Warhammer 40,000 universe was far less known to the general (and videogaming) public at the time when StarCraft was first released, with very limited presence outside the tabletop wargaming niche. In any case, such a section should also tie in with the cultural impact and reception section, and clearly mention the fact that the StarCraft setting has been been from the start highly acclaimed and recognised as having a unique identity.212.54.194.163 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarities with Star Trek

I think it is also noteworthy to mention similarities with the Star Trek Universe. The Protoss in particular, have a history very similar in some aspects to the Vulcan history, where, citing wikipedia itself:

"In about the 4th century AD, Vulcans emerged from their violent tendencies and civil wars under a philosopher named Surak, who advocated the suppressing of emotion in favor of logic. This period was known as the Great Awakening (...) Surak's views and lifestyle were not universally accepted by Vulcan society. One particular group of Vulcans who called themselves "those who march beneath the Raptor's wings" were so adamant in their opposition against Surak that it lead to a nuclear war, of which Surak himself became a victim. After time the portion of Vulcan society who rejected Surak's teachings left the planet for the stars. This migration of Vulcan separatists would eventually become known as the Romulans. "

And so the Romulans are the dark version of the Vulcans, much as the Dark Templars are of the Protoss from Aiur.

Perhaps a subsection of similarities between starcraft and other franchises (40k, star trek, etc) should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.12.208 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, one of the main laws of the Protoss, the Great Stewardship under which they are supposed to care for less-advanced-not-yet-spatial races that they encounter, is practically equal to star trek's federation (and originally vulcan) law, the Prime Directive, "which forbids any interference in the natural development of any pre-warp civilization"

(sorry, I forgot to sign in for the edit...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urindar (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So the page was deleted, yet I do not see anything related to StarCraft Precursor (AKA StarCraft: Loomings) in the article. For those that do not know. Precursor is the prelude to episode I and follows the Confederacy covering up the Zerg invasion on Chau Sara. One or two sentences about it and its relation to the main episodes would be sufficient I think. Venim (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed it under the expansions section, however, I still feel it should be mentioned under Plot. Venim (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why is "Starcraft 2" not mentioned in the article?? 18 June 2008

It is mentioned, in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the introduction, just not explicitly "Starcraft II". Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's like saying Half-Life and Half-Life 2 work off of the Quake engine simply because they use a heavily modified Quake engine. Starcraft runs off of the Starcraft engine. Don't make me compare screenshots from the pre-alpha, alpha, beta, and current versions of Starcraft & Warcraft II, along with detailed notes on the way the game mechanics differ. -12:15, 6 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahou (talk • contribs)

That would be original research, which isn't allowed. Verifiable sources say it runs off the Warcraft II engine. -- Sabre (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That, and the fact remains that it is a modified Warcraft 2 engine. That the heavily modified Quake engine for Half-Life was given its own name doesn't mean we need to make up one for this one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG External Links check

This Featured Article has four dead external links, which can be found here. Please fix them as soon as possible. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, hopefully the web archive has some of these. I'll have a lookie for replacements over the next few days. -- Sabre (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All right. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, updated. Two from the web archive, one was moved internally, the last has been replaced by another which says the same, and may be the same article since they were written on the same day. All done. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"StarCraft - StarEdit Tutorial" is dead, but there are archived copies. Some accessdates are a bit old, but can be easily update through the checklinks. — Dispenser 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Archived url of dead reference added. -- Sabre (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

N64 Change

Since this is a featured article, I decided I'd see who approves it, have the community as a whole work with it to put it in the game.

The N64 chapter misses a few key points, for example, if there is no RAM Expansion, and the regular pack, split-screen play is locked, and graphics are reduced quality. Also, the game also features 1 new cooperative play mode where player 1 chooses his race and the main HQ, and player 2 will choose their race that will make up two of the starting workers, and the two players share resources and units, acting as one force with a possible two races and two controllable fronts.

Also, Starcraft 64, if I remeber, had a mini-quick challenge skirmish set up where you could go in, and it would have "1v1 map name" depending on your race you chose. Ledgo (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a featured article, I'd advise two things: firstly, WP:V: we can't just add that stuff simply because one or two editors think that the point should be made, it needs to be referenced to a reliable, third-party source. Secondly, we have to bear in mind WP:VGSCOPE and what information isn't actually needed by readers who haven't and may never play the game, such as information on unit, building and resource setups in a co-op mode. A mention of a co-op mode itself may be a useful addition (if, coming back to point one, it can be reliably sourced), but the setup behind it isn't. As for "who approves it", articles can't become FA's without community consensus; the relevant processes for this article are all noted down in the article history bit at the top of this page. -- Sabre (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is completely understandable, I'll try to do my best to dig around for the coop mode, when I have spare time, as for the RAM addition, it'd probrably be better left out.Ledgo (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't a new game mode. They're referred to as "team" gameplay modes on the PC version. One to four people can play as the same player, sharing resources, units, supplies, and such (maybe it was added to the PC version later, though, I'm not sure). HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright... http://ign64.ign.com/articles/123/123894p1.html To save time, if you want, I'll snip out the part. "However Mass Media has tweaked the game to include an enjoyable co-operative two player game. This didn't seem like such a big deal a year ago, but co-op game play is the most requested videogame feature nowadays. You can you're controlling. Marines engaging zerglings look like blue and gray blobs bumping into red and purple blobs. Many games ported to the N64 have this overall haziness that makes the game seem like a cheap reproduction of a high quality original. We can only hope that the current graphics are only temporary and that they will be smoothed out and polished by the September release date -- perhaps with the help of an additional RAM Pak-dependent high resolution option."

"For multiplayer action, players will be limited to a split-screen two-player mode that includes a cooperative mode. "

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/strategy/starcraft64/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

"While previous ports of PC real-time strategy games have lacked the ability to save during levels, Starcraft 64 allows you two save slots to play with. It's a major step forward for RTS titles for the console systems, and puts the game a step ahead of all that have come before it with its genre. Ultimately, the N64 version of Starcraft holds plenty of rewards with only few minor drawbacks. The huge number of levels available and the two-player split-screen mode - slowdown ridden as it is - make for an incredible amount of value. N64 owners looking for a game to help fill time before the next big release for the system arrives will find exactly what they're searching for here."

http://cheats.ugo.com/platforms/nintendo64/cheatcodes/StarCraft_64.shtml

"Bonus missions Successfully complete level nine in the Zerg Brood War Episode with at least five minutes remaining to unlock the bonus "Dark Origin" mission for episode 6.

Successfully complete all 58 missions to unlock the cooperative multi-player Resurrection mission."

I have found these three sites mentioning the cooperative game mode. I know, I know, alot of hard work for little reward, but I think it's short, should only mention "Share a force" and keep it at that. For example... "It also includes a split-screen cooperative mode that allows players to share a force"(Just an example) Ledgo (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, included in the article. It only needs one source to reference it, so I've gone with the IGN one... mainly because I'm getting an error 500 on the GameSpot one. In any case, its a good bit of info, I didn't know that the game had a co-op mode. -- Sabre (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty fun to play, even if there is no one else is there, it's fun to try and fight to fronts at once.Ledgo (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Videogame Addiction is A Very Serious Problem

Videogame Addiction is A Very Serious Problem. Perhaps thae article should have a section on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.228.154 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on it here. In any case, video game addiction isn't that substantial with StarCraft, there's only one real case of that Korean guy dying after 50 hours straight, mentioned in the main video game addiction article. It simply isn't so widespread enough with StarCraft (unlike World of Warcraft) to add any real coverage of it to this article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:07, 4 December 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)

College Classes

So i've seen ALOT of articles in the news about how colleges are now offering starcraft classes for credits. I can get references when I get home, but should this be mentioned? Ledgo (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, can you elaborate? People teach how to play StarCraft in college? (Are people really that sad?) -- Sabre (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's something like this. It's college courses examining StarCraft. I'm sure the game can be useful to study game theory, etc. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The infobox says StarCraft uses the WarCraft II engine, but StarCraft is "not WarCraft in space". Unless somebody can find a citation, I think it's false and will be deleting it in a week or so (unless somebody beats me to it)... In the meantime, I've added a "dubious" template. --Wulf (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the development section of the article it is explained that StarCraft uses the WarCraft II engine as its base, and provides the source:

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/blizzard/p3_01.html Dionyseus (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever played WarCraft II?  ;)

From page VIII of the introduction by Mike Morhaime to The StarCraft Archive:

"We showed an early version of StarCraft to the public at the Electronic Entertainment Expo in 1996 after only a few months of work. We had taken the WarCraft II game engine, slapped in new artwork and sound effects, and wound up with a game that was rather underwhelming to those who saw it. After the show, gaming magazines referred to our upcoming game as "Orcs in Space." Ouch. This cold reception prompted us to do some soul-searching about the direction we wanted to take the game as well as our ambitions for it. It also brought about the first of two complete rewrites of the game engine." (Bolding mine).

So, while it is based on the WarCraft II engine, I think calling it that is incorrect. They've got rather little in common...

Wulf (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Warcraft II looks and feels a heck of a lot different from the end StarCraft. However, they remain rewrites of the same engine code. Hence, modified Warcraft II engine; The base code is still the Warcraft II engine, its simply been heavily jacked up during development. -- Sabre (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding its use here, but doesn’t “complete rewrite” mean it doesn’t share any code? —Wulf (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that what was left of the original Warcraft II engine during the rewrites, the 'base code' as Sabre puts it, might just be simply the generic stuff that is included in EVERY gaming engine. It is common practice to reuse the core fundamentals in coding projects, but the reused code is not a unique development, but merely a design shortcut, to avoid rewriting pretty much exactly the same stuff. The code no more belongs to the original project than, say, a very basic colorless book cover that was separated from its óriginal content and used for another book. While it is 'technically' true that the SC engine originated from the Warcraft II code, we could just fine say that it is the Warcraft I engine, since Warcraft II used the WarCraft I code, and the similarity between the two is a no-brainer (unlike WCII vs SC). I say that SC is listed as having its own engine, which it factually is, for all I know. BroodKiller (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

When I load the page, I see a section under "cultural impact" called 'greatest starcradt player' stating "Justin Hwang is considered the greatest starcraft player ever to play the game. Not well known due to his living in the south pole. What makes this story even more amazing is that he is blind in one eye and lost his hand in the second world war. <refname="awardss"/>" Call me skeptical, but I don't think that's true. However, when I try to edit the page to remove it, I can't find the text. Is something weird going on here? Mokele (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was added and removed about 45 minutes ago. Rarely, the cache won't update for some time, but I don't think this affects registered users. Were you signed in at the time? I performed a forced purge (you can do it by adding "&action=purge" to the address bar and hitting "enter"), which should clear up the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft II engine?

I thought that StarCraft originally used the warcraft 2 engine, but then it was criticized for looking to much like warcraft in space so they completely redid the engine?--Zappedgiants (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See the thread two above this one, where there is further explanation. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters Speaches

I think something should be put in the article about the character's speaches/lines. a good deal of those phrases actually come from sci-fi movies like "alien" or others. adictionally when the player repeatedly selected a unit there was allways a sort of gem at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southwestsoul (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Refferences to other franchises

Hello,

I have added a short section at the end about the direct refferences starcraft makes to other franchises. I am not sure if it should be called trivia section, or eastern egg section, or the current title is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urindar (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid its not acceptable under any title, Wikipedia articles shouldn't (though many do) have lists of miscellaneous info such as trivia or other disjointed facts, sorry. See WP:TRIVIA for the relevant documentation. As this is a featured article, it needs to stick to the guidelines more closely than the average article. Any mention of the various references made in StarCraft should be summarised in prose and, most importantly for this sort of stuff, referenced with reliable, third party publications. If you can get hold of such sources, then a brief mention with a couple of examples may be warranted in the development section, though not a comprehensive list. -- Sabre (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand about articles not having trivia sections, however, I think there are enough facts and refferences throughout starcraft, about other franchises, as well as clear influences from other franchises, to include such a section. The Starcraft article seems a little small in my oppinion, many sections having very little information, for example the races could have their own wikipage, as many other races / characters from other movies / games do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urindar (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The races have their own page. This isn't the only article dealing with the StarCraft franchise. But we can't accept original research from our own experiences of the game, no matter how correct they may be. There's a clear influence from the Warhammer 40k franchise, for instance, but as no sources explicitly reaching that conclusion are available, it isn't mentioned. It has to have been covered in third-party publications to warrant inclusion. -- Sabre (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Book -- StarCraft: Speed Of Darkness (2002) by Tracy Hickman

The article for Tracy Hickman links to this article, as he authored the book StarCraft: Speed Of Darkness, which was released in 2002 according to Amazon. I figured it should be mentioned in this article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agvulpine (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Terran vs Protoss

The article says that Protoss is powerful but slow and immobile and frames Terran as a middle ground between that and weaker Zerg who rely on speed and numbers. a maxed out Terran army is stronger than a maxed Protoss army. And speed zealots and dragoons are faster than sieging/unsieging tanks. Also, it's really common to use arbiters in PvT which give the Protoss army a lot of mobility since recalls can happen anywhere on the map. User:ccheever —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Well that is true. But in TvZ, Marine+Medic is not slower than Zerg army, and in PvZ Protoss is actually slower than the Zerg, except the Cosairs and Shuttle--FrankLSF95 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ghost?

I know that SC:G has its own page, however I was suprised to find that it was not mentioned at all in the StarCraft page itself. Should this be fixed? Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Development-wise at least, Ghost isn't really related to this game; its probably better linked to from the series article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt there be a minisection discussing the pro gaming aspect? with links to the proper article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.81.103 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The game is theft from Warhammer 40K?

Is it true that first phases of the game were developed under Warhammer 40K licence?

¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

To Zerg

I was surprised when reading this article today that the cultural legacy section didn't include mention of how the word "zerg" has become a fairly universal gaming term for a specific kind of rush. For specific terminology to transcend its original context and enter the wider culture represents an extraordinary level of influence that very few games, or products of any kind, ever achieve and IMO is worthy of inclusion.

I know this is a featured article so I hope I didn't mess it up too badly ;) I also think this should be included in the cultural influence section for other StarCraft-related articles but I'll hold off on this for now. Threephi (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason it wasn't included on this article was because the point is made over at Species of StarCraft, in the section on the Zerg. Its probably more pertinent there than, where Zerg strategy is discussed in greater detail and therefore fits in with better context. -- Sabre (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I started on this after randomly visiting zerg earlier today, which brought me to that very section, but clearly I missed that since I scrolled right to the cultural impact section looking for it. I did scan through the archives here before making the edit to see if it had been discussed previously and only found one mention requesting inclusion, with a comment seconding the idea and no other followup. Here's my thoughts on why I put it where I put it:

Firstly, while the term does describe a strategy (although one can find examples outside a gaming context where "zerg" refers even more generally to any large movement of similar beings), it is IMO more significant as a cultural impact given how special and rare it is for a word to make this kind of leap into general use, as I mentioned in my first comment. That very leap is really the essence of cultural legacy.

Secondly there are many elements that are repeated in the cultural impacts/legacy sections across multiple StarCraft-related articles for example mentions of the Korean pro leagues and its TV presence there; specific citations of critical reception when StarCraft and Brood War were released, etc., not to mention other factual duplications under other article headings, so duplication doesn't seem to be a decisive test.

I think it's fine where it is in the species article but beyond its specific tie to the Zerg race, the term "zerg" is a significant and lasting cultural legacy of the game itself in a much larger context and merits a mention in the main article. I do agree that my edit does kind of hang out there on its own and could certainly be improved upon but that IMO is a failure of my abilities as a writer and not a shortcoming of the importance of this element. Threephi (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source though. Not for FA.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned about that but couldn't find a citation from a more professional source after looking for about two hours. There are many examples to be found for use of the word (themselves from blog posts, comments, and other un- or quasi-reliable sources) but I couldn't find anything else online (other than Rush_(video_games)) that specifically addressed the definition.

Before making this edit, I did read through WP:RS and WP:RSE where it says it can be ok to use otherwise unreliable sources in limited circumstances and with strong caveats since the nature of cultural elements (in this case, the definition of a slang term) makes them harder to source than hard facts. You are right however that Urban Dictionary is currently considered unreliable (which I was not aware of yesterday) but an earlier assessment ok'd it for precisely the limited purpose I cited here, with an assist from WP:IAR. I figured using Urban Dictionary here squeaked into being ok given how much support there is on that site for the definition of "zerg", and the absence of another source.

I will keep looking for a better source but that has proven difficult so far. Threephi (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult search term. I guess UD will have to do here to show off popular culture. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"3 expansions" in the intro

I don't think referring to Insurrection and Retribution (long-forgotten "third-party add-ons" to use Blizzard's terminology; searching for them on blizzard.com doesn't even return any result) as having the same status as Brood War (a true expansion that is more widely played than the original) is a service to the reader. I propose changing the wording

With its storyline adapted and expanded through a series of novels, StarCraft has three expansion packs and a sequel, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

to

With its storyline adapted and expanded through a series of novels, StarCraft has two single-player add-ons and one expansion pack. It spurred a sequel in 2010, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

I would have been bold and did it myself, but someone left a note "Please do not change this" in 2008 so I thought I'd discuss it first. Note that the situation is different today: we now know that SC2 will have what amounts to 2 expansion packs, so it's important not to mislead readers into thinking that SC2 will have one less expansion pack than SC1 when it will actually have one more. --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion pack and add-on are fairly interchangeable, and an introduction is supposed to be as concise with details as possible. Simply referring to three as expansion packs and then fully elaborating on the full differences between the "official expansion set" and the "authorised add-ons" in the appropriate section fulfills that function nicely. However, if you really want to make the change, go ahead. -- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article with an improved wording, since I noticed that there was no mention or link to Brood War in the intro or infobox. --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a previous discussion on this and you should avoid immediate changes to a Featured Article when the change brought up on the talk page has been disputed. However, for the sakes of clarity, I do not think another 10 or so words in the lead are a big deal-breaker, since this seems to be brought up a lot. I reworded the lead to conform with MoS better. Also, can we call Brood War "canonical"? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to call the change "immediate" when I waited two weeks for any comments, and a bit of a stretch to call it "disputed" when the only reply basically said "I'm not sure about this and that, but go ahead if you feel like it" :-)

There are still a few things that bug me with the current intro, if you have any ideas on how to word them properly:

• I think it's important to mention the year 2010 for SC2, since it's such a big gap for a video game
• is it really necessary to mention the name of the third-party add-ons here, given their limited success?
• it would be nice to mention the fact that the competitive/professional scene is exclusively based on Brood War, even if it is often referred to as "Starcraft"
• there is no link to StarCraft: Brood War professional competition, even though there's a whole infobox for it at the bottom of the article
• calling BW "canonical" is definitely correct, but probably a bit vague and less clear to the reader than something like "In the competitive scene, StarCraft usually refers to StarCraft augmented with the Brood War expansion." --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the previous discussion where it was decided to call it "3 expansion packs". Only one reply here simply means there may not be too many people watching this page. This can and is however being revised. I don't want to discourage you from being bold, I was merely pointing out there was a previous discussion.

I made the changes you listed that I agree on. Though I don't think there is need to explicitly state that Brood War is what is used for tournaments, not in lead. Also it is not only the professional scene where BW is known as just SC.

I'm still out on whether Insur/Retrib are notable enough to be in lead alongside Brood War. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Canon" is a dodgey, loaded word, and there isn't a strictly defined canon for StarCraft, so that term should be entirely avoided, especially for dealing with products. The notability or success of Insurrection and Retribution is irrevelevant to article content: the lead is there to summarise article content, and we deal substantively with both add-ons in the article. That said, the link to Insurrection and Retribution isn't needed at this point in the article, its better to link to that from the appropriate section. I've modified the lead to address this. -- Sabre (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

StarCraft N64 & European release

Hi,

According to the infobox, SC-N64 was released on 16 June 2000, however I’ve searched that information in the linked reference to no avail. On the other hand, according to the French WP article, that release has been cancelled… yet WP:FR claims that without giving any reference to confirm such cancellation. In case you have any data about this, could you please share it (and post a note on my talkpage, sothat I could adapt the WP:FR article accordingly). Thanks. — MetalGearLiquid ^[chat] 13:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In pop-culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B16eAS1dwA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.24.48 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Huncraft Genocide

HunCraft Genocide should be listed at expansions section. Though that is not an official expansion and not even in English, but its gameplay is more detailed than the others. Christo161 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Christo161

You will need to provide reliable, secondary, independent sources for this though, especially since this article is being maintained to FA status. Same goes for the HunCraft article, which seems to fail WP:GNG at the moment and will most likely be nominated for deletion unless some quality sources are given. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut Shootings

I'm wondering why my addition on the link to the Connecticut shootings was removed. The unsourced statement that "In the korean movie "old boy" you can hear a marine using his stimpack in one scene" is worthy of inclusion, but the fact, sourced from a major newspaper, that Adam Lanza played StarCraft, touching off discussion about the possible effect of violent video games is not? Kirkpete (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending line for being unsourced and trivial. Your content, I would also argue, is (also) trivial to StarCraft as a whole, and is newsy, so I would agree with whatever reversion was made for your edit. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Heinlein's Starship Troopers

The primary inspiration for the game comes from Robert Heinlein's book "Starship Trooper's" the primary game elements, three primary races of the game, ect are taken from the book. The game developers themselves have acknolwedged this by including him in the game credits. This is clearly a very important fact that should be incorporated into the text of the article if it is going to maintain its featured article status.XavierGreen (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All very well saying that, but without a reliable source to solidly back such a claim up, the information cannot go in the article. Inserting unreferenced material into the article would be more damaging to its FA status. -- Sabre (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"nexus" vs "Nexus" and how Pylons relate

I found an interesting comment in the "Resource Management" section.

This refers to the generic term "nexus", not the in-game building. Please don't change it to refer to either the building or the in-game pylons.

This is not correct. Here is the relevant quote from the source

While the Nexus provides a link to this matrix, Pylons are needed to actually tap into the energy required to provide Psionic energy.

This is clearly referring to the building called the Nexus and the buildings called Pylons.

Additionally, the specific building for Terran is mentioned as is the specific unit for Zerg, so the Protoss building should be mentioned as well.

In short, the comment is wrong and the page should be corrected. I recommend the following:

Terrans use physical supplies held in depots, Protoss use pylons to access psionic energy, and Zerg are regulated by the number of controlling overlord units present

--Nt1366 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And what is a Supply Depot? A depot. What is a Protoss Nexus? A nexus.

And you're not even being consistent. All 3 (primary) supply structures are mentioned and referred to in lower-case, generic form. There's nothing special about "Nexus" here. -- BlueFenixReborn (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

BlueFenixReborn, Are you replying to me or the article? Because I am being consistent. For one thing, the Nexus is most certainly not the supply structure; Pylons are the supply structures. Also, whether or not you think the "Nexus" is special, the source statement is what the article should be written about, not your opinion. -- Nt1366 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, full stop. We're not being very clear with our communication here, and this is what's leading to the issues. The issue of which term to use, "nexus" or "Nexus", is separate from the issue of the article erroneously (implicitly) stating nexuses as the primary supply structure, when pylons are. And so with that, I was a bit hasty and failed to fully read what you were saying, concurrently also failing in my independent readthrough of the article to realize that it erroneously mentioned nexuses instead of pylons as the primary supply structure. I have since realized that, although not corrected it – as you guys have done that for me already.

What didn't help was that you tossed out a vague and seemingly erroneous statement – which I assumed was just a brainfart – in the nonsensical "Additionally, the specific building for Terran is mentioned as is the specific unit for Zerg, so the Protoss building should be mentioned as well", given that all 3 buildings/units already were mentioned! And if you were to be referring to mentioning it in proper noun form, well the Protoss part of the sentence is identical to both other parts of the sentence as well – so that didn't make any sense either. I only realize now that you meant that you assumed that the person who put it there as it was had intentionally decided to not include the primary supply structure for the Protoss, as opposed to erroneously mis-mention the wrong structure.

Anyways, I hope that clears things up. TL;DR The article erroneously mentioned nexus as a primary supply structure. "Nexus" vs "nexus": not too sure what Nt1366 thinks about this yet. BlueFenixReborn (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I think we're on the same page.

The reason I said "the Protoss building should be mentioned as well" is because there was a hidden note in the article that said the term "nexus" was not referring to the in-game building at all. I think the person who originally put that note in felt that the psionic energy was a "nexus of energy" and not the building called "the Nexus".

Anyway, the current version that says "Protoss use psionic energy channeled from their homeworld via pylons" is good. -- Nt1366 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What you said about the note would actually make sense. I didn't take issue with it initially because like I said I didn't realize they used the wrong building, and so just interpreted the note as them referring to the in-game "Nexus" building as a representation of a generic "nexus".

Anyways though, I agree with you: we've got a good working version of it now, so let's lay it to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueFenixReborn (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Talk:StarCraft_(series)#Requested_move_13_December_2015 czar 21:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:StarCraft (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Starcraft release date for Mac OS

Can anyone find the month and day of this in 1999? It seems odd that we have exact dates for the other OS releases but not Mac. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft (video game). 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/20151105123118/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=asia&sid=a2JvzciDnpB4 to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=asia&sid=a2JvzciDnpB4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on StarCraft (video game). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071020032934/http%3A//www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/cg/agg.dll?p=agg&sql=1%3A6109~T1
• Added archive https://archive.is/2017.02.23-104211/http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/03/starcraft-2 to http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/03/starcraft-2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/starcraft_dark_templar_trilogy_-_book_one_firstborn_qa_with_christie_golden/

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) 20:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft (video game). 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://archive.is/20121209131018/http://www.gamegenie.com/reviews/pc/retrib.html to http://www.gamegenie.com/reviews/pc/retrib.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) 19:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K

I know nothing about warhammer 40K, but a year or so after the discussion on this talk page, an article from a reliable source, wholly about the similarities appeared. https://kotaku.com/5591285/before-starcraft-there-was-warhammer-40k I propose adding this info now. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 06:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Blizzard Entertainment Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Currently the lead has range of refs which violates MOS:CITELEAD. Does anyone have any objections before I remove them?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At least one of these claims in the lead is also highly questionable: "It has been praised for pioneering the use of unique factions in RTS gameplay, and for having a compelling story." Hardly pioneering, as Dune 2 had unique factions 6 years before - an eternity in this period of computer gaming. One could argue that Starcraft goes further than Dune 2 did, but that would then be perfecting, not pioneering. Forelyn (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)