What did it run on before?
Is this from the '80s (fun 8-bit retrocomputing pixels fun), early '90s (DOS goodness), late '90s (Cthlulhu-esque Win9x VXD horrors), noughties (early hardware 3D, now looking better than ever), teens (just needed dusting), or what?
Is it local or networked?
What kind of game is it? So I know if I should keep reading or not?
I understand that you want more specificity, but it's simply untrue that the page doesn't make clear generally what sort of project it is.
Here's some more depth in my own words. It's a real-time strategy game from Cave Dog Games in 1997. It's a precursor to Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. It's a spiritual ancestor to Spring, Supreme Commander, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, Supreme Commander 2, the Forged Alliance Forever project, Planetary Alliance, and a few others. Zero-K and BAR are other updated reimplementations. It competes in the space with the original Starcraft, with Warcraft II, the earlier Command and Conquer series games, Dune 2000, and that sort. It has land, sea, and air units and dedicated construction vehicles of all three types. By default there's a commander to protect whose death causes a player to lose the game, but that can be configured to be off. There are stationary units like artillery and buildings including power generators, metal extractors, and factories that make the other units. The construction mobile units and the commander build the land units and buildings. The linked page shows the sort of graphics the original has and puts them side by side with the reimplemented version from the project.
It ran on Windows 95, 98, ME, and XP just fine. ISTM it would run on NT 4 and 2000. I think it runs on 7 from the CD and maybe 10. I don't use the discs much these days though because despite owning two or three disc copies I also got it on sale on two or three different digital storefronts.
"thing_1 is like $other_thing_2 and $other_thing_3 and it resembles $other_thing_4" assumes that one knows things 1, 2, 3, & 4.
If you've never heard of 3/4 of them then this is not helpful. It is not an explanation at all.
That's what I mean about "every page is page 1."
We all need to examine our assumptions.
Any and every page about a project or a tool needs to set the authors' assumptions aside and actually explain what it is and what it does, to people outside of the creators' context.
Or, to quote The Big Bang Theory, "I know you're trying to help, sweetie, but you really aren't."
I've heard of Starcraft but never seen it. I know vaguely what "Command and Conquer" is, I think.
Nobody can effectively explain anything to an audience unfamiliar with the entire field using only referents from within that specific field.
I started playing computer games in 1981, and I own maybe approaching 1000 of them. I have bought at least 4 or 5 games for my kid this year alone.
None of these are among them, not a single one.
In order to learn how to explain, you need to examine your context. You need to know where you are to explain how to get there. Without understand what your context is, and learning to step outside, you cannot explain anything much.
Along with "every page is P1" there's another tech-docs saying:
"Docs or it never happened." No docs = no project. Docs, even a README, that fail to say what it is are not docs.