05-05-2004 08:31									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

well 3D isn't really all it's cracked up to be... and Warcraft isn't so much an RPG as a puzzle game with tiny little squad-units... warcraft III isn't warcraft II at all, as far as I can tell

	05-05-2004 14:22									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well people can't have it both ways, either it is condemned for being the same or condemned for being different.

Personally I think the hero focus of WC3 makes it have a very different feel to the earlier Warcraft games and Starcraft. This is why many fans of SC don't like it.

WC3 is geared towards smaller hero controlled armies, with a small RPG component, and I think it's all the better for it. It does mean that the missions can be more varied.

Either way those that argue it's just the same as earlier games but in 3D probably haven't played it at all.

	05-05-2004 19:59									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Here are my favourites:

1. Warcraft III
2. Starcraft
3. Rise of Nations
4. Warcraft II
5. Command & Conquer (original)
6. Empire Earth

	05-05-2004 21:38									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

For those dissing Total Annihilation, try it with some mods. (which are still being actively made)

I recomend the Absolute Annihilation mod - great stuff.

	06-05-2004 00:23									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, Dr. Spike- I wasn't demeaning War III for being the same or being different- I was demeaning it becaues it just generally isn't a real RTS in the same sense that all the other games on my list were (excepting Close Combat II, which really isn't a real RTS either) both games are more squad-based individual-unit specific games instead of unit-masher-grinder games.

Total Annihilation tried to balance the disparity between the types with its uberpowerful commander units that could go nova on a battlefield and allow you to win... and colonize, etc.

As such, it is the best of both worlds- it was different enough without changing the genre's 'feel' and aspect too much.

	06-05-2004 02:07									#36
	Tired of ads?

I think you are right DC, don't get me wrong. There are undeniably differences between WC3 and the more mainstream RTS, though WC3 is still a RTS game. My post was aimed more at Jamski who ludicrously argues in a recent thread and a little here that WC3 and Starcraft (and some other games) are the same apart from graphics. Thus, it follows he says, that one cannot consider one game superior to the other. Even the sheep can't persuade him of his folly in making such a silly statement.

	06-05-2004 02:28									#37
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

1. Europa Universalis 2
2. Homeworld
3. Warcraft 3
4. Starcraft
5. Original C&C

	06-05-2004 02:30									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I liked the original settlers the most.

They were truly revolutionary.

	06-05-2004 04:27									#39
	Tired of ads?

somewhere along savs list with WC3 waaaay high up in the list

That and I heard AOE is an incredibly good game. I never played it deep enough to understand it, so I'll believe my credible sources.

As for #1, i think its either AOE or SC. (ill go with SC cause i know for sure thats good)

	06-05-2004 06:56									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

1. Starcraft!
2. RON
3. Warcraft II

After RON there's no reason to play another RTS...

	06-05-2004 10:38									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I was going to say that any Top RTS list that has an alternative style game like Medieval: Total War without also having Europa Universalis (as, obviously, the #1 spot ) is a joke....

EU is totally overrated. Fun at first, boring in the long run. Kinda like Black and White that way.

Close Combat was a VERY fun game! The 2nd was the best, as when they expanded things (like the 3rd) it lost something, and when they added the strategic stuff (as in the 4th) it became perhaps a bit too complex. Close Combat series was the first games I remember where you commanded individual soldiers who had various levels of experience and would disobey your orders if you told them to do something totally stupid (though elite soliders were more disciplined), just like on a real battlefield!

I don't really play RTS, so the rest of the list means nothing to me .

	06-05-2004 11:59									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I only played wc3 for a short period, but i'd still put it kinds high based on that whole other discussion we had, about gmaes htat are revolutionary for their time.i think it was UR who put it so eloquently.
So while 3-d and wc3 in general may not actually be much of a crackup, we can decide by precedent, that wc3 deserves preordained place on the list.
Not necessarily very high, but a place nonetheless. However that does depend upon how revolutionary 3-d proves to be. Some other gmae may come along, nad turn it into more of a strategic thing, as opposed to eye candy. The fate of wc3 rests in the hands of the programers of today, and the pointless lists to be argued on pointels forums of tomorrow.

	06-05-2004 12:10									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But Dune Emperor had done 3d before WC3, and with a (slightly) better graphic engine (properly rotatable, and with a longer zoom)

The only thing "new" in WC3 is the heros getting EXP, but this is stolen from WBC2 anyway, only in much less depth in the Blizzard game.

Apart from the graphics and the heros, which are just candy anyway, the game plays almost exactly the same as Starcraft. You can even draw parallels between certain units and strats...

WC3 has some great art though, and all the Monty Python references are kinda sweet (to start with) but from a pure game-theory point of view... ...well I made the point that these games are all the same, and SC and WC3 are the "most similar" IMHO.

Spikie... I know you'll disagree because I've been playing SP, but the play mode doesn't affect the game mechanics, just the manner in which the player has to manipulate the mechanics to be competitive.

-Jam