Warcraft or Starcraft?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuryFox

Really? I think that's a great feature of WarCraft. Just having units isn't enough, you actually have to play them. I almost never used the "micro" skills in SC, but I use almost all of them in a WC3 game. The FT expansion was really pretty insane and brought a ton to the game, more the Brood War did (except for in story, where BW kills it).

As far as running units? Just group attack his whole force. He can't make them all run.

---

Well if you're talking about managing the heroes, then yes, I definitely agree there. Managing the heroes is fun and has a lot of strategy you have to consider, but I still think the way everybody plays, by having every single unit constantly run away whenever attacked, is utter bullshit. It's one thing when you're doing that with a hero, I can't blame someone there, but doing it with every foot soldier or ghoul is just annoying as all hell, enough to make me just want to quit the game. I mean honestly, if it's going to take 10 minutes to finish a battle between 10 units because everybody runs and nobody dies, it's just not worth it.

Don't get me wrong, I still think War3 is a fantastic game, the single player is excellent, the multi is theoretically excellent, the game is meticulously well thought out, and it plays unlike any other, but there are just things like that, at least online, that annoy me to no end. I guess the game also has a hugly systematic feeling, down to each exact move, that it takes away almost all of the spontaneity that I love of the genre, and that turns me off as well.

omfgninjas:

OK, fix wasn't the right word. Basically before War3 came out I wanted War3 to continue the gameplay style of Starcraft etc. (Obviously, I thought it was best RTS ever right?) Blizzard chose to alter the style of play radically, from Macro to Micro. I didn't find this change enjoyable, and I had hoped that Frozen Trone would at least increase the number of units you could use a bit more substantially than it did. Of course, if they had done this the game would have changed completely, from the style you are enjoying to the style I enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victrix

Warcraft III will lose, but I'll mostly just say Starcraft owns because Siege Tanks are one of the coolest units in all of creation.

The actual game no longer interests me. After playing Kohan, no other RTS has ever held my attention in the least bit.

---

I'd say the same, except switch Kohan with Empire Earth.

I prefer Siege Engines to Siege Tanks.

http://www.battle.net/war3/images/hu...iegeengine.gif

Nothing says destruction like a Siege Engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omfgninjas

That's nostalgia clouding your judgment. After Starcraft and Warcraft 3, I could never play 2 again.

WC3 is extremely micro and reflex intensive and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone that's not willing to invest some time into mastering it, just like any good twitch-based shooter (that's no exaggeration, there are replays out there from tournaments with guys clicking in with over 100 mouse clicks a minute, just from moving units around). Starcraft is more about resource management and counter-based strategy. They're both on opposite ends of the RTS genre, and if you don't like one, you generally like the other.

---

The multiplayer in Warcraft 3 is too hard for my pussy blood cells. Me and 2 of my friends played LAN against it, and they took us all out before we could have a decent defensive line mustered up.

The one thing I liked about Warcraft 2 was the naval battles with all of those 1000 island maps. Because I could alot a lot of resources in to a second base and build units from it. So if one of my bases were destroyed, chances are the enemy fleet was well depleted enough for me to launch a crippling counter attack.

I'm sure some nostalgia is attached, but man, I loved that game. But the animated sequences in Warcraft 3 make SquareEnix's animation team look like slackers.

The sequence where the orc fights off the big enemy was awesome. I think he died, I can't remember. I just remember a lot of rock and an amazing amount of realism and detail in those animations

I think I'd like Starcraft, but Warcraft will always be better for me. I like primitive weapons and magic over advanced technology and science.

Oh yeah, and I'm a production whore. I like having the option to mount an amazing defense or offense. Just makes it more fun for me.

Perhaps it's because I suck.

Starcraft. I enjoyed myself playing this game more that Warcraft3. I suck at both games, but I suck less at SC. I think it's because I can't wrap my head around doing both building units and getting them organized, along with sending out heros to level up against npc's. I just flat out can't do both at the same time.

Maybe I'm just old. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omfgninjas

Um, really? Blizzard publically let us know that Warcraft's focus on smaller units and faster battles was so they took the weight off of resource and building macromanagement so you can spend more time on unit control and battle micromanagement.

Starcraft is micro-less until high-level play. Your success in WC3 depends almost entirely on your micro.

---

Thats interesting. I haven't played starcraft at high levels, but from what i have seen of the koreans playing, micro plays a HUGE HUGE part in who wins. Or maybe that is just the strong difference i see between thier sc micro and mine. Conversly, i played 2v2 WCIII at high levels, and scouting and strategy was everything. Everyone could micro good enough that it almost became negligable, it became using the correct units for the correct times. The times micro DID matter alot of where similar armys would clash, but i can think of many more cases where that was not the case at all.

Have any of you seen the video about the starcraft champion? It's crazy. He wins in like 5 minutes, but they have this crazy announcer and announce team and everything set up for the event. Even spectators.