🚀 go-pugleaf

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:b23pm3xlhe.ln2@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "Artificer" <eliezer...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1150917218.772603.199980@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Many of my friends have told me that as RTS starcraft is better than
>> warcraft 3 because it have better strategy and that there are a lot
>> more international competitions. Is that true? Can anybody elaborate on
>> the subject?
>>
>
> There is a lot to this question - and likely someone is going to get 
> pissed off about it.

Fuck u!!! U suck!! :D

> Starcraft was seemingly the perfect combination of strategy, micro and 
> macro management, about the right number of units, the races were almost 
> perfectly balanced while still allowing different tech trees and building.

Not to mention that it was graphically and sonically way superior than
any other game in its time. The sprites, background, tilesets (especially
in broodwar) were masterpieces. It just sets an atmosphere that sucks
you right in. I remember looking at it for the first time and seeing SCV's
going to harvest minerals, and was like 'wtf this looks good'.

> Someone at Blizzard decided that they wanted to force people to micro 
> manage their units more (As if there were not enough incentive in SC) so 
> they developed the game to simplify unit control, building and production 
> while focusing on small individual battles.

I wouldn't call the unit control simplified in Warcraft III. If anything,
it's a lot more complicated. Lots of spells and abilities for lots of units,
so much that it's quite easy to totally forget a vital power of a certain
unit type. Making decisions on what units you want is also harder,
because you have a very limited foodcap, so you really have to
keep a good mix of units because you can't replace them quickly
like you could in Starcraft. Keeping your units alive is way more
important in Warcraft III.

> The idea of creating heroes with special abilities was to increase the 
> benefit of multiple race alliances and attacking together.

This is true. I like it though. The whole thing with the levels, powers,
and items. Nothing like a good battle with 4 or 5 hero's in the middle
wreaking level 6+ havoc.

> But it may have been too coached, too idealistic and too forced.  After 
> all, people like to do whatever they hell they want with a game, and now 
> someone was making up their minds for them how they were going to play.

I don't agree. There's lots of different strategies with Warcraft III, 
because
you have so many options between upgrades and powers. Take the hero,
for example, you can even control which powers he will get on which level.
Then there's items, stores, mercenaries. So many things to choose from,
lots more choices than you have in Starcraft.

> Some people don't care about playability; graphics are all that appeal to 
> them.  Certainly war III has better graphics than SC!

I dunno. I have a thing for sprites and never really liked 3D strategy 
games,
no matter how good they look. I got Dawn of War here and I just can't
get into playing it. It just doesn't appeal to me like Starcraft in all its 
2D
simplicity does. Neither does Warcraft III, but ofcourse Warcraft III
is a beautiful game, and plays more like 2D.

> But be careful with arbitrary comparisons, especially superlatives - play 
> both games, see if you like them.   After all - games are meant to be fun.

And Warcraft III is fun. Even the single player campaign is extremely cool.

> Starcraft will be remembered as a great innovation and development of its 
> time, like pong and pac man.   Hopefully our age will see the release of 
> starcraft released in a platform independent format.

One of kind, absolutely. It raised the bar so high that no game, 8 years
after its release, can even touch it. Not even Warcraft III.