I hated what they did with the heroes. Having one unit take out half the others army is just stupid. The heroes worked really well for the solo campaign but they didn't fit with the multiplayer. The Warcraft 3 equivalent of a zerg rush is building a single Blademaster and harassing your opponents harvesters until he gets back while you simply vanish and walk away. It's really stupid and very effective.
I also didn't like the upkeep system because I couldn't build a ridiculously huge army and stomp anyone in my warpath. If you have too many people you lose too much gold which really gimps any chance of sending in reinforcements. I'll always prefer Red Alert 2 over the other RTS games because of the huge battles you could have with lots of units instead of small fights with way too much micromanagements.
Tons of special abilities aren't needed when each unit is well-defined for its role on the battlefield. Some units shoot rockets that are good against tanks while others use guns that are good against infantry. What's the point of having all these balanced units if one super-powered hero can just stomp them all?
Special units shouldn't gain huge benefits from leveling up. In some C&C games any unit that killed a lot of enemies would "level up" and gain the veteran rank. This would give them a small boost to their damage output and have their health regenerate over time. This works perfect because it rewards a player for keeping his men alive while not throwing the game in his favor too much. The actual special units would be an engineer that could capture an enemy building or a hijacker that could take over enemy vehicles. They had very specific abilities for their non-combat roles.
RTS games shouldn't be sprinkled with RPG overtones. Units should be unique in the sense of having a job no other unit can do quite as well. Warcraft 2 did this just fine and they ruined it with Warcraft 3. If it ain't broke don't fix it! I can only hope they don't do the same to Starcraft.
Er, Starcraft didn't even outsell The Sims (16 million), let alone Mario (40 million including bundled copies).
I enjoyed playing Starcraft and I liked the way that the storyline was put together, with each faction's missions starting where the last's left off. Which C&C games have you tried? | |
Worldweaver wrote:
My god damn army should be able to reproduce whenever I tell it too if I have the resources and houses to feed it. All it does is handicap good players. You mean "all it does is prevent the players who think they're good-- because they can amass resources then attempt to zerg their opponent without any thought or strategy-- from getting an easy win." RTS games shouldn't end in 2 minutes depending on whoever gets the bigger zerg. L2usestrategy And on my opinion of all the Blizzard games (since the topic has spread to that): StarCraft is obviously far more intricate than WC3 considering it's officially Korea's national sport, but I enjoyed WC3 the most. I loved devising all sorts of strategies and ways to use heroes' abilties together with my teammates (human's archmage is a godsend for most any other race's mana-intensive heroes) to defeat the opponent, and it didn't require mindlessly amassing an enormous army to do so; just a brain. I don't intend on playing SC2 too much since I'm just much crazier about fantasy rather than sci-fi, but I'll certainly buy it and enjoy it for what it's worth. | |
Massing huge armies doesn't work in a real game of StarCraft. I'm sorry for everyone who played BGH and had a 30 minute "no rush" rule so they could get their 24 carriers and battlecruisers and attack eachother, but that doesn't happen in normal StarCraft.
If anyone here actually tried ranking in ladder you would realize that there's alot of strategy. Isn't following what you're good at part of any game? If you're good at managing alot of units, go with the Zerg. If you like using a race that goes more on special abilities? Protoss. Are you more defensive? Terran. WarCraft 3 was a fun game, I just really think the heroes threw it off. It was basically a trump card. I don't think it was a failure by any means, I just really didn't get too far into the idea. I didn't like how rushing the creeps to level your hero was more important than killing your opponent. I also didn't like the upkeep. It's war, war is in the name. War involves alot of people dying, and frankly - when I play a war game half the reason I'm playing is for destruction. | |
Worldweaver wrote:
You're just burnt because you got Zerg rushed by a bunch of Koreans. =P Speaking of which, I need to learn how to play competitivly. Those Zerg rushes gah D: | |
Dead_Demon wrote:
Worldweaver wrote: A bunker or two of Firebats with marine support can usually take them. With Protoss, I usually get a few cannons and flank with a Zealot group. Although, I haven't played in a while. These methods may be outdated. That, and you have to move REALLY fast to get them in time. | |
You mean "all it does is prevent the players who think they're good-- because they can amass resources then attempt to zerg their opponent without any thought or strategy-- from getting an easy win." If you're playing anyone good, then that's not going to work. And if you happen to get that many more resources than your opponents, well resource management is half the game isn't it? | |
DarkCampainger wrote:
Dead_Demon wrote: Tell me about it. By the time I am getting my soldiers built, I have a mass of Zerglings swarming my base. But that doesn't detour me, like it does some people | |
Actually I found all blizzard games to be genius on some level.
Starcraft was about mass units and how you facilitated those units and managed your resources. Yet it did it perfectly, and well balanced. If you've ever played Supreme Commander you know how easy it is to have an unbalanced mass-unit strategy game. Warcraft 3 was about micro management and learning to use each unit effectively. It did it perfectly as well, although I wasn't a big fan of the RPG factor I still play DOTA. Then there's Diablo 2, which was just the most superb RPG and still is the best RPG ever made. | |
Jon Snow wrote:
Then there's Diablo 2, which was just the most superb RPG and still is the best RPG ever made. I quite disagree. Sure, Diablo 2 is perhaps the best action-RPG-clickfest ever made, if that's your kind of thing. But it's miles away from being the best RPG ever. It's a bit like saying that Deus Ex is the best strategy game ever. Yes it's one of the best games ever made, and yes there is strategy involved, but you couldn't really call it a strategy game. | |
Crispy wrote:
Jon Snow wrote: Yeah, I'm also agreed with Crispy here. I'd probably reserve "best RPG ever" to The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, in the computer RPG sense, or to Final Fantasy VII in the console RPG sense (although the genre is so laden with competitors that opinions will vary significantly in the latter case). | |
Neither one of those games have sold as many copies as Diablo 2 has, nor lasted the test of time as well as Diablo II. As a whole, in the vast sea of RPG's ever released no RPG has ever withstood the test of time as well as Diablo II... except maybe pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons, but of course I have no exact number of how many people have played that game. In all aspects of the game it excels; even the marketing of the game was superb and even today it sells for usually 29.99 which is what some brand new spanking games sell for. I've gone and bought Diablo 2 probably twice now and played it several times through, while Elder scrolls I played for awhile... got bored and stopped playing. The only reason I stopped playing Diablo 2 was purely because the community was horrible, which I suppose could be considered a fault of the game's online system. Still, considering that Diablo 2 is also multiplayer and a hell of a lot of fun... there's just no competition.
| |
Jon Snow wrote:
As a whole, in the vast sea of RPG's ever released no RPG has ever withstood the test of time as well as Diablo II That is a recklessly bold claim, and I'm calling you on it. If it's based on personal opinion, then it's exactly that - opinion - so you don't get to state it as fact like you're doing. If it's instead based on sales statistics (a poor measure of quality by many people's reckoning) then it's demonstrably false; see Final Fantasy VIII. According to Wikipedia, "More than 6 million units [of Final Fantasy VIII] were sold in total by the end of 1999", whereas "by January 2001, [Diablo II] had sold 2.75 million copies worldwide". Your entire post smacks of fanboyism. | |
Aww hells naw. This is not the way you talk about the best selling game of all time. There are so many ways to play the game. Hell, you've got the Fastest rush in the world and Ling Rushes, Muta rushes, Reaver drops, DT Rushes, bunker hopping, moving town strategy, ect. ect.
It's so good that they have sport leagues revolving around it.
Warcraft on the other hand is completely ruined by heroes. Who allow mediocre players to fight long drawn out games, and even win against pros. The factions play way less differently than Starcraft. You've got the Undead who have a sort of creep like thing coming out of their buildings(ripped off from SC), but it doesn't do anything. The Night Elves who are pretty much the same as the Orcs and Humans but can move their buildings(yet another rip off from Starcraft). Upkeep was a complete screw-up too. My god damn army should be able to reproduce whenever I tell it too if I have the resources and houses to feed it. All it does is handicap good players.
I've tried Command and Conquer and they pretty much sucked compared to Starcraft.