1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Article: Why StarCraft Owns Warcraft 3

Discussion in 'General StarCraft 2 Discussion' started by MeisterX, Apr 15, 2008.

Article: Why StarCraft Owns Warcraft 3

  1. Remy

    Remy New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,700
    Likes received:
    2
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    US East Coast
    I think that's how everyone(err... well, most people) understand strategy and tactics. However, it is ones expecation on the scope of strategy in a game compared to war in real life. It's not that strategy itself is impossible in RTS, it's just that it won't cover all bases that exist in real life in most cases.

    Strategy in RTS games might be a very limited take on war when compared to wars in real life, but looking ONLY at how strategy applies and exists in real life wars is a very limited take on the word strategy itself. There exist other aspects and possibilities in the greatness that is life, not just wars, just like there exist other aspects to strategy in wars.

    RTT = misnomer

    RLWPSDTTLD = correct. Oh, btw that stands for Real Life War Painstakingly Simulated Down To The Last Detail.
     
  2. beBoy

    beBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    67
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Agree

    I have to agree... I played a few Warcraft 3 campaigns before and hated it. Personally I think Starcraft's game play makes more sense to me, Warcraft 3's every unit counts style is like playing a role-playing game, and role-playing and RTS don't really connect to each other to me.

    I think, to an average Joe, Starcraft's game play is much more understandable than Warcraft 3's, and this is exactly what the article is talking about. I had never thought of why I didn't like wc3 before, and now I do.
     
  3. josh

    josh New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    In Our House
    Firstly, as I read the guy's article, I think it's biased. But still true.

    A game shouldn't only appeal to gamers, it should also appeal to spectators. A game should be made to be enjoyed by gamers and spectators alike.

    Starcraft and Warcraft 3 share a common genre. So basically, both games are in a war setting. It didn't really make sense when I play WC3 and I noticed that a player should focus on the heroes rather than focus on the entire army. Even when a squad is outnumbered as long as the hero is uber strong, you'll win. And I find it boring.

    SC on the other hand don't have any heroes during skirmish. And when you play campaign and if you have a hero, it's just like it's just part of the army. How cool is that? Every unit in SC has its own significance, unlike WC3 where most of the units are just support fire.