 |
| |
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
Aight, there's alotta WC3 haters here. I actually hated WC3 for sometime too, until I started playing on bnet long enough to see the big strategy difference between SC and WC3
By the way, if u think WC3 sucks because single player story plot is lame or something, then just go download some custome campaign or something... Leave single player out of a game thats meant to be played on BNET. (Its like saying OMG quake I is ghey cause ending suxoRed!  )
Continuing on, Warcraft Owns.
Why?
- Heros. Makes gameplay that much more exciting. No gay build time in the beginning. Anyone can plop altar and have unit to play with right away. You can rush/harass wit it, creep, whatever.
- Heros. Your army build is centered around hero's strength and weakness. You can have some very interesting army variation with this.
- Micromanagement. WC3 both takes away some micromanagement and adds some. There's lot more auto stuff in WC3 that helps you take away from having to do the micros, but because of that, time freed from spending on those micros allows you to micro even further by making everything else more efficient.
- Each unit is worth more. Well this is kinda easy to see. Since WC has 90 unit point compared to SC's 200. Also each unit lasts longer. Damage to HP ratio is really high in SC, while in WC3, it is usually less. That makes unti last longer in game. Locking down one in 12 squad of dragoon is also less impacting than say entangling 1 in 12 orc grunts.
- gamespeed is much faster. Compare normal speed in SC VS WC3 speed. You can play at fastest speed in SC, but no one plays ladder in fastest speed in SC. (maybe in BGH...)
-Game is extremly rushdown goodness. Creeping makes gameplay much more aggressive. If you're just sitting around in the base turtling. You are guranteed to lose in WC3. Hero leveling also forces you to play aggressively cause best anti hero option is usually another hero. And you dont wnna have lv1 hero going up agst a 10.
Reasons why I see WC3 sucking:
-Random factor. Treasures are ghey (although some drops in the map arent random). Benefitting from random treasures doesnt reflect skill. Its like item drops in SSBM.
-Heros. I'd still say all heros arent balanced enough. If you wanna play competitively, it sort of forces you to pick the 'best' (or popular) hero. Going with Dark knight or Farseer makes almost 99.9% of the advanace strategy in WC3, cause theyre really good. It kinda kills variety mentioned above. We'll see hoe this turns out as patches come up and people play the game enough to find new strats.
Town Portals. Game is whack in that unit can teleport anytime anywhere as long as they have TPs or archmage mass tele spell. Its kinda good in that unit can get into action ASAP and all that, there's not much division of troops because of this. (Basically every races plays like how zergs play in SC....)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
I can see Warcraft 3 being a good game to people who like those types of games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:34
|
|
I'm usually not much of a multiplayer type. The exception would be Age of Mythology, as I actually preferred Age of Mythology for multiplayer. Being able to field larger, more diverse armies on a grander scale is more appealing to me than the small-scale group based 'tactics' of Warcraft III.
As for the singleplayer of Warcraft III, the campaigns were boring and way too easy, even on the Hard setting, and its story was so utterly predictable. Though Age of Mythology didn't have much of a campaign either, at least it is stronger on the multiplayer side to the point that it is perhaps the only game I still enjoy playing online.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
forgot one big negative imo:
there's a lot of retards/idiots/insane people on bnet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I'm level 18 on Kalimdor. Havent played in +2 month-ish because my desktop is teh broke. Because my laptop sux ass, Ive been playing only console games these days. (like fighting games and EA sports games mostly)
My friend is now like in mid twenties. My other friend who plays in clan game is always making pseudo names... but he's the best among our group.
quote:
Originally posted by LordAzreal
I'm usually not much of a multiplayer type. The exception would be Age of Mythology, as I actually preferred Age of Mythology for multiplayer. Being able to field larger, more diverse armies on a grander scale is more appealing to me than the small-scale group based 'tactics' of Warcraft III.
As for the singleplayer of Warcraft III, the campaigns were boring and way too easy, even on the Hard setting, and its story was so utterly predictable. Though Age of Mythology didn't have much of a campaign either, at least it is stronger on the multiplayer side to the point that it is perhaps the only game I still enjoy playing online. |
WC game can get pretty big. if u survive initial 7-8 deadly min (where like most games get decided). there are games where ppl max all 90 food and bring out all 3 heros etc. Also if people dont quit (most people realize and quit when the difference in tech/resource army cant be turned over) and fight to the death, WC can get pretty big.
But I see what you're saying. I havent played age of myth so i wouldnt know though, but if both people are really good wouldnt it end early too? Most RTS seems to have a really short time in deciding the victor.
SC story plot = WC story plot. "Oh no, wretched enemy, fate binds us to ally. Gay story twist." anyway, enough with SP.
Last edited by Zero on 27-03-2004 at 22:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2004 23:53
@ The level of +1ing here.
|