Starcraft 2 - More than just a rumor?

[ChewyLSB]

Originally Posted by Angel_of_Death

Uh, why does everyone hate WC3...

I think it's awesome, for a strategy game that is.

Because it's inferior to StarCraft: Brood War in almost every way?

[Corrosion]

Originally Posted by ChewyLSB

Because it's inferior to StarCraft: Brood War in almost every way?

QFT

[AztecWarrior]

Originally Posted by ChewyLSB

Because it's inferior to StarCraft: Brood War in almost every way?

QFT

[Destroyeron]

...Do I dare say that I like Warcraft 3 better then Starcraft?

[ChewyLSB]

...do I have to bust out my page long argument as to why WarCraft III: TFT is inferior to StarCraft: Brood War?

I'll do it, I SWEAR! Don't provoke me! Thread de-railment will commence if you provoke me!

[firecrackerNC]

I like WC more then SC. Bite me.

[Sputty]

/me provokes Chewy
I want teh list

[StrangeFellow]

does anyone here who plays Starcraft: Brood War play on USWest.Battle.Net by anychance?

i agree, SC>WC3

[ChewyLSB]

Alright... here goes...

StarCraft came out on February 28, 1998. It was a fantastic RTS, but it wasn't very balanced. Subsequent patches came out, but the game was still unbalanced. Most noticable was the underpowered Terran side, but that was soon all fixed. StarCraft: Brood War, the expansion pack to Starcraft came out just under nine months after the first game's release on November 11th, 1998. Brood War added a few extremely important units, most noticably the Terran Medic, which spurred many more strategies. After this release and a few more patches, the game of StarCraft was finally balanced.

Many consider StarCraft the most balanced RTS ever, and rightfully so. Even today, 6 years after StarCraft: Brood War's release, not one game has come close to the perfect formula that StarCraft has developed of diversity and balance.

However, Blizzard wanted a limelight for another one of it's series, the WarCraft series. WarCraft II far paled in comparison to StarCraft, so Blizzard decided to release another sequel to WarCraft III. The much anticipated WarCraft III was finally released July 3, 2002. Fans were overjoyed, but soon realized many balancing problems.

However, there was hope, as even StarCraft was more unbalanced at the time of it's release. The most noticable problem with WarCraft III was the insanely powerful spellcasters. Blizzard had hoped to recitify this problem with the release of WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne almost a year later, on July 1st, 2003. The problem was fixed.

However, the reasoning behind StarCraft's dominance over even the most advanced version of WarCraft goes much deeper than just simple balance. Certain gameplay mechanics that made StarCraft shine were removed in WarCraft III, and WarCraft III has certain inherent problems with the way it is set up. There are two major problems with WarCraft III. The lack of micromanagement and the upkeep system.

The first and most major flaw with WarCraft III is it's lack of micromanagement. WarCraft III is supposed to increase the use of micromanagement, which is apparent by the lowered population limit, but it utterly fails in that aspect. One major flaw was made. WarCraft III's units had far too much health. In StarCraft: Brood War, the unit with the most health, the Battlecruiser, had 500 health. However, units in WarCraft III had far too much health and did far too little damage.

This may not seem like a big deal, but in high end playing, it is. Because the units have so much health, split second decisions and micromanaging quickly become less and less important. One of the greatest things about StarCraft is all the split second decisions you have to make. Do I sacrifice those marines to let that siege tank siege, or do I move everyone back and use the siege tanks ability to move while attacking. These little things that require micromanagement have been all but eliminated in WarCraft III.

The other major reason, although it is less important, is the upkeep system. The upkeep system made little sense. The upkeep system basically discouraged expanding, so that if you were to expand, you would receive upkeep and the bonus from the expansion is significantly reduced.

So... yeah. Those are the reasons I feel WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne is inferior to StarCraft: Brood War. There are others, but those are the main reasons why I don't like WarCraft III.

[firecrackerNC]

I still like Warcraft 3 TFT better. Plus with SC expansion they added like what 3 units per race? Well in WCIII TFT they added 7 Neutral heros, 1 new heor per race, like 4-5 new units per race. New spells, maps, Items and creeps. Therefore TFT is better then BroodWar.

[Electrofreak]

I've been waiting on StarCraft: Ghost, but it keeps getting pushed back

edit- oh yeah and StarCraft > Warcraft *

[Wraithlord]

hmm, I did, I was replying to the first post, not participating in the discussion

[Spider]

Thing is with blizzard they usually realease very good products but with adjustements to be made (patches etc.).

They don't really get a second chance on console... so the game needs to be bug-free and since it's their first time doing an entire console game instead of a PC port (diablo) they really need to suceed if they intend going into the market.

I'd rather wait another year then have an half-assed piece of shit in my console.

[Dharkbayne]

You can patch console games now. Atleast Xbox games, because they have a built in HD. They did it in SC: PT

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Dharkbayne

You can patch console games now. Atleast Xbox games, because they have a built in HD.

Yeah but their releasing the game for the GC, PS2 and, XB. So they could fix two out of three... I've come to see Blizzard has perfectionists and while two out of three is good it's not good enough.