StarCraft 2 - Announced May 19th?

[UATrewqaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Heros are the gayest thing ever in RTS multiplayer and is one of the many reasons I hated WC3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn right.

WC3 was slowed down, wussified SC.

SC was highly demanding in that you had to manage a ton of stuff at once

"I gotta expand, I gotta upgrade my troops, I gotta scout, I gotta stop his expansion, I gotta keep teching to counter, I gotta protect my other expansion, I gotta build units more to spend my resources"

There really wasn't a second you weren't furiously clicking around trying to accomplish 50 things at once.

WC3 also had freaking RANDOM item drops? So I've got to lose a battle because the random monster gave my hero got a useless +1 int staff and his got a very useful healing potion? BUH??

[ QUOTE ]
Calling them shallow and claiming they ruin a game is ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason SC is legendary and WC3 was just another game.

The best SC players could micro their ass off AND do all those other things. The BGH SC crowd is probably what spurred the changes in WC3, that and setting up WoW.

If you wanna make an RPG, make it. If you wanna make an RTS, make it.

Both are good, but not mixed together.

You don't dump chocolate cake and scrambled eggs in a blender and then eat it for dinner, even if they are your two favorite foods.

[capone0]

I prefer a real RTS without heroes and without that kind of work. Yes the Battles tend to be more macro in SC then WC3, but that's what I prefer. You have to micro your troops still, you have to make strategies, you have to do work, you act like the best in Korea didn't have rediculous micro skills. Maybe I never gave WC3 enough time, but I compared it to arguably my favorite RTS all time and it just seemed slow and different. I was expecting a game more like WC2 which was similar to SC in gameplay and got a curve ball. I guess I wasn't ready to adapt, but I don't think WC3 ever became as popular as SC at the lower and higher levels.

[Scary_Tiger]

Warcraft 3 was a great game. The soft counters were much more realistic and necessary with the low unit cap. Battles revolved around heroes and protecting them and killing the enemy heroes were the key to battles. In Warcraft 3 every unit you made was important, in Starcraft they're much more disposable. Starcraft is a different game, but I liked Warcraft 3 plenty and played a thousand or so more Ladder games than I did in Starcraft.

Still looking forward to Starcraft 2 and probably going to go play some Brood War now.

[capone0]

Macro Game vs Micro Game. It was a phase shift from WC, WC2, and SC. I personally didn't like it, I never said everyone else didn't like it as well but from my circle of friends it wasn't very well received. I don't know anyone who really played it but I know even in 2003 and 2004 I played SC with my buddies at school.

[UATrewqaz]

This shouldn't turn into a SC vs WC3 debate for a few simple reasons.

1. Personal preference, different folks like different things

2. History will ultimately decided which is the "better" style of game (and has in my opinion)

3. SC2 has been confirmed to not include heros, creeps, or any other RPG style elements, so it's a moo point.

Ya know, like a cow's opinion, it's moo, so who cares.

[TBag]

I never said the best SC players didn't have micro skills. (200 APM~ anyone?) But that's not the point. My point is that WC3 is a very in-depth strategy game and not just some run of the mill RTS that's not worth noticing.

[ QUOTE ]

WC3 was highly demanding in that you had to manage a ton of stuff at once

"I gotta expand, I gotta upgrade my troops, I gotta scout, I gotta stop his expansion, I gotta keep teching to counter, I gotta protect my other expansion, I gotta build units more to spend my resources"

There really wasn't a second you weren't furiously clicking around trying to accomplish 50 things at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a FYP for real.

Claiming WC 3 had significant "RPG" elements is laughable. The game is not about LOL LVLING UP HERO IS FUN. Sure, your hero can level up and he can carry items, but the average game was probably about 20 minutes. You're not grinding out a hero so you can kill that leet mob at the end of the dungeon. You're uppping the strength of your most valuable unit on the battlefield, and which hero you pick will drastically affect the STRATEGY options available to you. (Strategy in WC3? NO WAI)

You guys like SC and that's great. That style of RTS is your fit, but just because the different style found in WC3 doesn't rub you the right way doesn't mean it's a garbage game.

[ QUOTE ]


1. Personal preference, different folks like different things

2. History will ultimately decided which is the "better" style of game (and has in my opinion)


[/ QUOTE ]
HEAD ASPLODE

[UATrewqaz]

There is a subjective element to it but also a more "official" stamp as well.

A great example would be movies

Some people might really love the movie, say Glitter (staring Mariah Carey), to them it might be the greatest movie ever made.

That's all well and good, they aren't "wrong" per say, they enjoy the movie, that's fine.

However the general consensus is that it sucks.

While this is an extreme example, you get the point. Different people like different things, but a consensus opinion among the people in the know is how something is judged historically.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a subjective element to it but also a more "official" stamp as well.

A great example would be movies

Some people might really love the movie, say Glitter (staring Mariah Carey), to them it might be the greatest movie ever made.

That's all well and good, they aren't "wrong" per say, they enjoy the movie, that's fine.

However the general consensus is that it sucks.

While this is an extreme example, you get the point. Different people like different things, but a consensus opinion among the people in the know is how something is judged historically.

[/ QUOTE ]
And where exactly did you survey a large sample of "people in the know"? While it may not have been as high as SC on the "Top Games of all Time" lists, pretty much every gaming site gives WC3 excellent reviews. In fact the only place I've seen this much hate for the game is this thread.

[bluef0x]

The general consensus of WC3 is that IT SUCKS?

You've been foolish in this thread... trying to rip apart WC3 and later you state that "it's subjective" but "officially" sucks.

How exactly will history decide which is the better game?

Also, you single out the BGH crowd. That crowd is partly why SC was so well-known. I bet you are one of those kids who tries to say [censored] like "OMG Don't use the AWP!" and "THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE GAME WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED!" As if you knew what the developers wanted.

BTW- I liked Starcraft (the "OMG TRUE WAY") a million times better than WC3 "OMG THE TRUE WAY."

[UATrewqaz]

No I said Glitter sucks.

And if all you ever did was play BGH then no, I'm sorry but you did not play SC.

That would be like me participating in nothing but slam dunk contests and telling people I play basketball.

You're more than welcome to play whatever you want, even if that thing is unmittigated crap (like a Britney Spears CD or BGH)