Starcraft 2

[Darth Chunkinator]

I, personally, think that Starcraft is one of the best games ever made. at least in the RTS genre. it lead me to buy warcraft 3, which made me appreciate Starcraft even more, I didn't like WC3. The sequel to this masterpiece has haunted my dreams for several years, and the pain has gotten worse since Ghost was made a console only title.

 

I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything, or felt like sharing.

 

grrrrrrrrr

[Aaron Contreras]

Warcraft III is great! Possibly the most balanced RTS ever made. Although I can understand how SC fans don't like the focus being on heroes and experience.

 

Have you checked out Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War? Excellent RTS from Relic that makes a lot of SC players happy.

[kumquatq3]

Possibly the most balanced RTS ever made.

 

in terms of online play, I'd give that to SC + Broodwars

[Percival]

Warcraft III is great!  Possibly the most balanced RTS ever made. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hahahah, good one.No really, that's a ton of laughs..

 

I think SC was one of those games that turned out much better then anyone imagined. And I doubt they could repeat the sucess of the game, so it's probably better if they stayed away from a sequel.

[Aaron Contreras]

Name one RTS that is more balanced than WC III.

[zer"0"]

^ Read post #3

[Percival]

War 3 is probably one of the most overrated so called "strategy" games around. And that's not to say there's a lot of good ones around anyway.

 

When each race has only one or two winning "strategies", where everything revolves around how fast your microing is, the game loses its feel. Heroes are what made the game so .. broken. At higher levels they can take on entire armies, and once you lose a hero, you might just as well surrender.

 

Now, if you consider balance, heh, I don't really consider 1 year of caster craft, 6 months of ancient abuse, 6 months of beastmaster abuse and of course, who could forget, the ever on going hero nukes, I wouldnt call that a job well done in the balancing department.

[Aaron Contreras]

War 3 is probably one of the most overrated so called "strategy" games around. And that's not to say there's a lot of good ones around anyway.

 

When each race has only one or two winning "strategies", where everything revolves around how fast your microing is, the game loses its feel. Heroes are what made the game so .. broken. At higher levels they can take on entire armies, and once you lose a hero, you might just as well surrender.

 

Now, if you consider balance, heh, I don't really consider 1 year of caster craft, 6 months of ancient abuse, 6 months of beastmaster abuse and of course, who could forget, the ever on going hero nukes, I wouldnt call that a job well done in the balancing department.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Zer"o":

Exactly.

 

Percival:

Well, you couldn't name a RTS that has a finer level of balance. You did come up with a lot of reasons why you don't like War III. Good for you. The focus of the game is heroes - not pumping out 99 units as fast as you can. To many players, getting a hero to level 6 as quickly as possible is far more exciting and entertaining than focusing your gameplay on pumping out lots and lots of units.

 

None of the abuse issues you mentioned broke the game. All of them were addressed over time - with the possible exception of 'hero nukes' which never was a problem.

[Darque]

I thought, and still do, that WC3 sucked.

 

I cannot wait for Starcraft 2... so long as they don't model it after WC3.

[SithLord#1]

I liked, and still do, Warcraft III. I had a lot of fun making my own games on its Map Editor. I sucked at normal games though, couldn't build fast enough.

[Cantousent]

I don't much care for WC3. I finally bought it because a friend really wanted me to try it. I got through the human campaign, the undead campaign, and I'm struggling with the orc campaign. Why? Not because the computer is difficult. I'm sure I could make the game far more challenging if I engaged in online play. No, it's that the game just does nothing for me. I don't begrudge folks their fun, but WC3 certainly isn't going to convince me to buy SC2. I think Age of Mythology is much more entertaining and, last time I checked, the fun factor beats the balance factor every time.

[oherror]

yeah i agree wc3 did suck...got old way to fast.

 

but i do agree with the comment on dawn of war so far its one of the best lan RTS game since starcraft...

[Oerwinde]

My only problem with Dawn of War is the lack of units.

[Finger of Death]

I, personally, think that Starcraft is one of the best games ever made. at least in the RTS genre. it lead me to buy warcraft 3, which made me appreciate Starcraft even more, I didn't like WC3. The sequel to this masterpiece has haunted my dreams for several years, and the pain has gotten worse since Ghost was made a console only title.

 

I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything, or felt like sharing.

 

grrrrrrrrr

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So am I. War3 is boring...

[Finger of Death]

Warcraft III is great!  Possibly the most balanced RTS ever made.  Although I can understand how SC fans don't like the focus being on heroes and experience.

 

Have you checked out Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War?  Excellent RTS from Relic that makes a lot of SC players happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SC is more balance than War3.

[Aponez]

Name one RTS that is more balanced than WC III.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even Tzar was most balanced than WC III, WC III is pathetic

[Aaron Contreras]

Even Tzar was most balanced than WC III, WC III is pathetic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you smoking? There isn't one dominant faction, unit or hero.

[Aponez]

Even Tzar was most balanced than WC III, WC III is pathetic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you smoking? There isn't one dominant faction, unit or hero.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Maybe because balanced mean (at least in spanish) that no one faction is better than other, Tzar was an old game, but was more balanced than WC III. The Europeans had advantage in the sea, the Arabs in land and the Orientals in the air.

 

And I don't smoke.

[Atreides]

StarCraft was and still is class in both story and atmosphere. Bliz hasn't been able to replicate that yet.

[roshan]

Warcraft 3 was quite crappy. The warcraft setting was adulterated with a lot of dnd garbage, the balance sucked, the graphics were too crappy and cartoony, and the game just sucked all in all.

[Aaron Contreras]

Maybe because balanced mean (at least in spanish) that no one faction is better than other, Tzar was an old game, but was more balanced than WC III. The Europeans had advantage in the sea, the Arabs in land and the Orientals in the air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is what I said. No faction in WCIII is stronger than another.

[Aponez]

That is what I said.  No faction in WCIII is stronger than another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry I misunderstood you (Is it right write?)

[Plooby]

I didn't even finish Warcraft III... I gave it to the kid down the street. I will be extermely put out if Starcraft goes in that direction. WCIII was trumpeted as some big hybrid between strategy and RP and I thought it just turned out a mess.

[Azarkon]

Blizzard is currently too busy working out their server stability fiasco with WoW than to make SC 2, I'd think. And besides, alot of the guys who made SC have left Blizzard, so I'm not sure if SC 2 is going to be like SC even if it gets made.

[Guest Surlent]

WC3 was a great single player game, but the multiplayer was too open for cheap tactics like unit massing or tower rush. Ofcourse Blizz has done fine job patching the game and banning abusers, but the end result is still the same.

 

Dawn of War was amazing in both in single and multiplayer, not just in balance but overall gameplay and atmosphere.

 

Blizzard will no doubt make SC2 one day, just like they made WC3. It's just too good opportunity to make famous product/money for them to miss.