🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 19 Jan 1996 05:54:18 GMT, Cha...@ix.netcom.com (Clay Cahill)
wrote:

>ty_...@alcor.concordia.ca (Eddie Ting Yip Chan) wrote:
>
>>Well, the missions can be monotonous at times, basically
>>shoot-the-Kilrathi-and-protect-all-confeds throughout.  But they can
>>hardly be considered suck.  Why don't you PRACTICE?  Or try lowering
>>the difficulty a bit.
>
>Sure they sucked. The missions structures were pale excuses for "kill,
>kill, kill." I played for the story to tell you the truth (first time
>the chrome was so good that it supported the gameplay). Don't get me
>wrong, I loved the game as a whole, but I thought the missions were so
>interchancgeable that they made little difference in how I fought and
>what I did. I'm hopeing that with the news of branching missions and
>changeing objectives in WC4 that the game will be a step up from 3.
>Could it be that they looked over to TIE fighter for inspiration? Now
>if the LucasArts guys would look to Origin on how to build a plot...
>
Exactly what I had in mind too Clay.  While both games are have great
gameplay, WC3 excel in terms of plot and graphics, whereas TIE in
mission structure/variety.  I'd wager nobody will ever recommend TIE
over WC3 if not for the mission structure (oh, and the SW theme,
ofcourse).  It is for this reason that, IMO, TIE have better replay
value than WC3 because after haven seen all the eye candy in WC3, 
one would ultimatly find the missions to be boring.


Eddie
ty_...@alcor.concordia.ca