 |
|
Triped
|
|
Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Sep 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
Warcraft I was innovative and fun.
Warcraft II was innovative and fun, albeit completely unbalanced.
With Warcraft III, Blizzard is doing to the series what Firaxis did to Civ3. It's a dumbed down, boring piece of sh*t. I swear, after playing five times all the games seen the same. Almost every respectable top player points out major game flaws, but Blizzard just turns a deaf ear, even going so far as to ban the dissenters. 
In conclusion, I'll go with Warcraft II, simply because Starcraft is not an option.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mr. President
|
 |
The leaves that are green turn to brown
Jul 2001 time: 15:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Triped
Warcraft I was innovative and fun.
Warcraft II was innovative and fun, albeit completely unbalanced.
With Warcraft III, Blizzard is doing to the series what Firaxis did to Civ3. It's a dumbed down, boring piece of sh*t. I swear, after playing five times all the games seen the same. Almost every respectable top player points out major game flaws, but Blizzard just turns a deaf ear, even going so far as to ban the dissenters. 
In conclusion, I'll go with Warcraft II, simply because Starcraft is not an option. |
That's interesting. Which parts of WarCraft II did you find particularly unbalanced?
I sometimes try to play WarCraft II on my computer, but it's not compatible with my sound card (ie. I don't have sound) and my computer is too fast for it. You tap an arrow key once, and the window flies to the other side of the map.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002 time: 15:19
|
|
Warcraft II got me into the series. It was fantastic for its time (though I was in the C&C camp in the whole C&C vs. Warcraft II debate).
However, a year later, I was so eager to find out how it started, and got Warcraft I. Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed Warcraft I more than Warcraft II.
As for Warcraft III, I obviously can't comment because I have hardly seen it apart from a few screenshots, and units.
So I definitely voted Warcraft I as the best one. It got a more positive reaction out of me than WCII and that was after already having WCII for a year. Imagine my reaction if I had've got WC I first.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Triped
|
|
Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Sep 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr. President
That's interesting. Which parts of WarCraft II did you find particularly unbalanced? |
a) Archers are completely worthless unless you are certain that your opponent has dragons/griffins...even then, they're barely cost-effective against them.
b) Ogres/knights make grunts/footmen completely obsolete, which was an unintended effect.
c) Ogre-Magi are ever so much more powerful than knights with bloodlust, and both cost the same.
d) Mages have invisibility and polymorph, which make them irritating snipers instead of support casters, as their real support spells don't have a significant effect on battles for the money spent. Death knights have the same predicament, but don't have any hit and run spells.
So basically what happens is the orcs run for ogre-magi, while the humans run for mages. It's still a fun game, though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:19
|
|
I have to say WarCraft II. But I am eagerly awaiting WC3. Of course, the Civ 3 lesson applies, I am going to wait to buy the game until at least towards the end of summer.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|