What's all the fuss about?

Wc3 offers very few strategy compared to Sc. Why?

All you have to do is send 5 workers to the gold mine and a few to chop woods and your economy is set. Every game basically consists of the same army battling it out. If you lose your hero during a battle, the game is basically over because your opponent not only gained a huge amount of exp, but you also have to waste time buying your hero back.

In Wc3, you always have the lone army that you control. In Sc1, you control many different armies. The only part that can be arguable is that Wc3 requires more micromanagement based on the heros but then that usually isn't the case because in Sc, you have to control so many different armies, that it makes up for it. You have to control your armies, expand, build workers and tell them to mine the minerals/gas, build buildings, etc. In Wc3, your economy is basically set at the beginning of the game. After that, it's just creeping and battling it out with u're opponent and microing your heros/armies. Not to mention, creep drops vary and can sometimes turn the tide of the battle. So yea, in Wc3, there is absolutely no macro aspect of the game.

You can see why many people dislike Wc3 because of the lack of strategic maneuvers. There is no game ending strategy in Wc3. In SC1, a well placed Reaver drop can end the game. Heck a well timed Lurker/DT rush can basically end the game for your opponent. That means, you have to scout very well in SC. In Wc3, you don't really have to scout your opponent because every game consists the same mix of units. There is no game ending strategy so scouting isn't really necessary. Heros are soo strong that any fancy builds can be counteract simply by the Heros abilities themselves.

All the things that I have listed above are why SC offers much more strategy then Wc3.

Which game do you like? That is more of a personal preference.

 

Indeed its personal preference ;P. I generally prefer wc3's better graphics - more unit personality via their art style, (which wc3 really built on) to sc, i mean, i go online on sc and majority of maps are MONIEY FAST maps

Tbh tho i dont really play wc3 melee games that much, its the great diversity of maps that can be found and fan made mechanics that tide me over.

For example you like Battle ships? there is a battle ships map!

you like Tower defence? there are over 100 TD maps!

You like a game set in a spaceship with matching terrain and doodads aswell as blood test machine - crew controls etc etc which takes features from various movies as: The thing! and Alien! where one player is an alien! but can disguise as a human and evolve to a higher state?! *takes breath* oh deary .

i could go on , but yes, starcraft's melee is much more of a *one slip and you're ****ed approach* where as wc3's is less of such, however this and the fact that the micro is a more condensed style (hero and his party not usually over 24 units) it doesnt mean that it lacks skill or strategies, there is an abundance of moves, ablities, attack formation, strategies to be used in wc3.

Regardless! wc3 has 2x more users logged on all day compared to sc! *raises fanboi conclusion fist*

 

WC3 came out almost 6 years after SCBW. Of course it has more people playing it. It's not as old! Don't forget it also gets a giant boost from WoW players who want to re-explore the WarCraft roots.

 

Are you trying to convert all SC2 players into CC players?
Would you like us to forget about SC2?
You are on a SC2 forum saying that SC2 won't be that good...are you looking to pick fights?
Whats your reasoning behind posting this thread.
If you were trying to make us aware of another great game a simple, "check this game out" thread wouldhave sufficed.

 

I find it beneficial for people to sharpen their standards when viewing new products and to not fall into branding trap.

 

The original SC > every single modern RTS to date right now, even CnC3

why? Gameplay... hands down Gameplay (I've played about every RTS out there so I've tried them all)

You wouldn't understand if you never played the original or just sucked at it or didn't even try multiplayer



Better graphics etc doesn't mean **** when it comes to enjoying a fun game, the core of SC is competitive balanced fun gameplay.

 

You haven't played StarCraft. That's why you don't know.

StarCraft is, to a lot of people, greater than Tiberium Wars (A huge disappointment to a lot of C&C fans), and StarCraft 2 could very well beat StarCraft ...

What does that mean for Tiberium Wars?

-"I don't have a clue what you are talking about" - JackBlack

I know what he is talking about. He's comparing it to StarCraft in terms of strategy/skill/gameplay, and, if you took the time to get to know StarCraft, I bet you'd feel the same way

-"I find it beneficial for people to sharpen their standards when viewing new products and to not fall into branding trap." - JackBlack

I challenge you to sharpen your standards by actually playing StarCraft before you judge it, or StarCraft 2. The fact that you think all of these things about StarCraft 2 tells me, without a doubt, that you haven't played StarCraft enough, and don't know what you're looking at.


"Regardless! wc3 has 2x more users logged on all day compared to sc!"

Yeah, a much newer game has more people logged on to play DotA, and other UMS than StarCraft has people logged in to play melee. Not to mention the WoW fanatics that wanted to play WarCraft III to get all of the lore, and got hooked on the melee/UMS. Big surprise.

Also .. StarCraft is more "one mess up you lose" than WarCraft III? Have you PLAYED StarCraft long?

 

I have not played Tiberium Wars. I have played the original Command and Conquer, I have played Tiberian Sun, the Firestorm expansion; I have played Red alert, and Red Alert 2. I am confidant that I don't need to have played Tiberium Wars to know about the gameplay features you are talking about. All of them were available by Red Alert 2, and quite a lot of them were around in the first couple games. The differences between Tiberium Wars and StarCraft II are not to do with either of them being “modern RTSs” of any quality, but have everything to do with the style of the game itself.

For the most part, the Real-Time Strategy genre has been split a few different styles of play. On how you collect resources, how you manage units, and how you interact with the terrain and other players. Sets of game mechanics, interface choices. As it happens, StarCraft and Command & Conquer are on two different branches of the RTS tree.

Veterancy- There is noting new, or cutting-edge about veterancy. As you are well aware, even Blizzard has been known to use it, in WarCraft III. That StarCraft II does not have this feature in the main game (as it will be available in the editor) says noting about its competitiveness to other recent RTS games. It is a feature, like any other, and has been one that Blizzard has opted not to implement. As has been mentioned, your average StarCraft and StarCraft II match involves waves of units wiping each other off the map in an extremely violent manner. While veterancy certainly would reward a player, such as yourself, that fights tooth-and-nail to keep their units alive, it has been deemed that it does not add enough to the game, for all the rest of the players, to merit the added complexity of having veterancy.

Know that, earlier on, forms of veterancy were actually tried, and scrapped. The Soul Hunter became stronger with every kill, but as it turned out, the way the unit played was both overpowered, and, simply, not fun. I am not saying that veterancy in other games can't be fun, or even that it can't be fun if applied well to StarCraft II, but as it happens, some of the best game developers in the world have attempted it, in the context of StarCraft II, and decided that it was a no-go.

Neutral Structure Garrison, Vehicle Garrison- I saw these in Red Alert 2. They worked. But to be honest, I don't see why the game having that feature makes it superior. It's just another game mechanic. I could note that Command and Conquer games have almost no melee units to speak of, but we would both agree that really is a non-issue. How units and attack, and how they defend does not determine a game's quality. What matters is how well it is done: how the player can manage it and how well it fits in with the rest of the game. The very closest StarCraft II comes to neutral structure garrisoning is the capture of neutral Observatories. Note that it is extremely possible for Blizzard to have players load units into an Observatory, but they don't, opting to have them place units next to them instead. Why? Because it's simpler, and you don't have to knock the structure down to disable the effect, and you don't have to scratch your head and wonder how exactly that Zergling was operating that sophisticated machinery in the first place. In StarCraft, there isn't the same clear-cut distinction between infantry and vehicles, things that can be loaded, and things that can be loaded into (and things that can be loaded and loaded into. It cuts out arbitrary rules, making for more streamlined gameplay. I'm not saying StarCraft is necessarily superior for this, but it definitely makes it easier to deal with in the scope of a fast-paced multiplayer match.

Deploying Infantry- I saw this as early as Tiberian Sun. Like structure garrison, it works, but like structure garrison, it is just another game mechanic. The closest thing you get to infantry deployment in StarCraft II is burrowing Banelings and using them as landmines- not very close. StarCraft II does have a number of larger units that do deploy, though. Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Vikings, Overseers, and Phase Prisms all have secondary modes that cause them to lose mobility and gain other abilities. None of the C&C games, as far as I am aware, feature mining structures that can fly, or transport workers. I don't hold this over them, because, like garrisoning, like infantry deployment, it's just another game mechanic, one they chose to use in StarCraft, and not in Command and Conquer.

Shoot-while-moving- It is extremely easy to implement independent firing and movement. Blizzard chose not to do this very, very early on, for the majority of units, in order to maintain “park and shoot” battles. The rationale being that is that it easier to understand what is going on when you can see what is happening. A unit is either attacking, or moving. It's like a built-in turn-based-strategy mechanic, one that forces players to decide between getting shots out, and maneuvering to a better position. But like veterancy, it is not as if Blizzard had dismissed the idea of units that move and shoot at the same time completely. The now-scrapped Cobra unit featured the ability to fire while moving. Like veterancy, this was tested, found not to be particularly engaging, and removed. Think of game mechanics like different building materials or plans for constructing a building. You can chose to build something with steel, concrete, wood, or likely a combination of all three. You chose the materials and plans that fit the project you are working on, each has its advantages and disadvantages, and it is how they interact with the rest of the house, the people that live in it, and the surrounding environment, decides if it was the “right” choice or not.

Deployable Abilities (Orca Sensor Pods)- This thing, from my understanding, is basically a hidden sensor/detector. What makes this kind of thing a feature of a modern RTS? StarCraft II has its own means of detection: Overseers, Spore Crawlers, Observers, Phase Cannons, Sensor Towers, Ghosts, Nomads, Scanner sweep, plus a number of abilities that do things like unveil cloaked units by depleting their energy or covering them in goo. Yes, the Sensor Pod is cool; no, it is not a necessary feature for a game to be great.

But I digress- what you were really talking about was abilities that can be deployed onto the terrain and other units. The original StarCraft had these- Spider Mines and Parasite are closest to the example you cite. In fact, the Spider Mine is also a detector... so maybe I should have left that entire last paragraph out, huh? A game made ten years ago has a deployable ability that not only detects, but pops out of the ground, chases its down its target, and explodes. That's pretty cool, too, don't you think? But, again, it's not the point. Both of these things are just combinations of game mechanics, ones that work for their respective games. (And as a final note on this topic: the Terran Nomad, at this point, deploys Auto Turrets and Spider Mines in StarCraft II, so yes, even by the standards you have been setting forth, in this area, it does in fact qualify as a modern RTS....)

Support Powers- We're talking about those “cast it from the other side of the map and you can't do anything about it”-type abilities, right? While, yes, it is another one of those game mechanics a game can or cannot do without, this is one where I am strongly in favor of the way Blizzard does it with StarCraft. I like that you have to squeeze a Ghost into an enemy base to be able to drop a nuke, I like that it isn't a point-and-click matter to level entire armies and raze bases. While there is certainly strategy in the interplay between affording and defending the structures that enable those abilities, I much prefer the strategy involved in, not only affording the Ghost and nuke, but positioning it, and keeping it alive, even a the enemy sees the point on the map that is going to be hit. It's a bit like the difference between constructing a unit normally, and the Warp-in mechanic for the SC2 Protoss. Do I want to be rewarded for having a structure alive long enough to get this attack out, or do I want to be rewarded for getting the appropriate units in the right place, even though everyone wants them dead (on top of the structure requirement? I wanted to say, “the investment-return ratio, or the risk-reward ratio, is better” - but it isn't. It's just more fun, from my point of view.

A lot of members on this forum have tried to convey the idea of “gameplay.” It seems we've failed, for the most part. I can't blame them, really. Even people that study game design at an academic level can't pin down what the heck “gameplay” even is. But what er know, as players, is that each game has a feel to it. Some games are smooth, others are rough, some are simple, others are complex, some are shallow, others are deep. These things are brought about by their mechanics, certainly, but it next to impossible, without one actually experiencing it, to begin to show how all those interactions work to bring about such qualities.

I won't try. I've decided to show you instead, or try, that differences in mechanics, in features, in complexity, or number, do not, by themselves, amount to differences in quality. StarCraft and C&C are different pillars in the RTS genre. They have different feels, they appeal to different people. You've stated that you are very singly focused on preserving your units, that you don't like multiplayer. Fine, that only means that this particular pillar isn't the one for you. People have fun in different ways. It might mean that you may never be able to get “what the fuss is about,” but do know that our reasons for liking this game are just as real as your reasons for needing to complete games without losing any units.

 

I didnt even play Halo 3 yet becuase people wouldnt shut up about it, I didnt buy GTA4 cuase the same reason, I dont even care about SC2.

However.

Its already 6 years 2 late for SC2.

SCBroodwar is still a leading RTS game despite its age, thats where most people start there RTS gaming careers. Its a classic, its original and cant be beat when it comes to classical RTS games.

SC2 is a couple years too late, they added a physics system that was added to other RTS games years ago.

Great ideas for new units, and i would love to know how the story line turns out, (if i didnt already know Jim will probably end up killing Kerrigan)

So yeah, to late for SC2 for me, the younger gen will hype about it, but as for this old dinosaur, i enjoy Company of hero's to any other game.

 

Yes, Company of Heroes set a whole bunch of new standards for RTS genre, nothing is the same after it, that's what I meant that no matter what gameplay mechanic Starcraft 2 employs it is not built within the new standards.

 

Um, Starcraft's standards beat Company of Heroes till this day IMO

 

So a simple, "hey, check this game out!"
or a, "hey, I'm worried your standards are too low." would have sufficed.
I still play N64, does that make me a bad person?

I'm impressed that you're more or less holding your own in a discussion against an entire forum.

 

Hes spouting irrelevant stuff and replying to the off topic arguments that some of us keep pulling out of our asses.

Singleplayer assets have not been revealed - hence your argument that they suck compared to another game. is false.

 

I wouldn't say his holding his own against the entire forum.

Anyone could do that if they wanted to. I could for example, come to this forum and say with the intention of believing that the world is flat. Since my intention was to stand firm on my believe, no one is going to change my mind even though they have laid out the proofs and evidences.

Sounds very bogus right? It is why I was puzzled if JackBlack was actually a troll from the beginning.

JackBlack came into this forum simply in his mind that SC1/SC2 sucks and asked as why we think it's going to be good. I believe we have already made our point. No matter how much we try to tell him how good SC1/SC2 is, he won't buy it because he already made up his mind to create an account on this forum with the intention of putting down SC1/SC2.

Then, I found out that maybe I was wrong about JackBlack. Maybe he wasn't a troll, but just a player that plays RTS differently. And I was right about it. JackBlack doesn't play multiplayer games (The most important aspect of a RTS game)

There is nothing wrong to that because there are people that buy RTS games just to play singleplayer games. But my point is, a person shouldn't be here to judge an entire game if he doesn't understand the important aspect of RTS multiplayer. Because multiplayer RTS is one of the most important aspect of a RTS and if one doesn't play it, he/she is missing out half of the game. It is clear that JackBlack focuses more on the eye candies of a game. It is why he puts other RTS games much higher over SC/SC2 simply because they offer better eye candies. What he doesn't understand is that those things don't translate into a good and BALANCED multiplayer game which other RTS has failed upon simply because he doesn't play multiplayer games.

 

did you actually watch those videos?

seriously though they are different games with different mechanics, you can't say that tiberium wars is a better game for some game mechanics that wouldn't even suit starcraft.

 

So let me get this straight. Some other games have this and this feature, so obviously Starcraft 2 should have it as well? Where is the fun in being as unoriginal than the other games. CoH is a GREAT game, and it's leaps and bounds ahead of TW. Heck, most of the people I talked to that were all hyped for C&C3 claimed it was a huge let down and waste of money, as it was just a rehash of EVERY SINGLE VERSION before it. *I say that because there are a whole lot of them, obviously..*

I applaud Blizzard for doing something away from the norm, what with the graphics and spending more time on the gameplay side of the game than making sure the reflections on the marines helmet were correct...Actually, this thread reminds me of the guy who wanted more realistic facial features on the units...ANYWAY, just because a game is being unique and taking a slightly different direction with it's creation doesn't mean it's going to suck...unless you're just too shallow to play a game and can't enjoy it unless it's the prettiest game under the sun.

And a veterancy system would be quit lackluster in this game, as in the multiplayer, you're too busy throwing massive amounts of units at each other. You can't possibly win the game if you're too busy walking the one unit around so it doesn't die.

 

"I downloaded more than 1GB of Starcraft 2 gameplay videos, and I can't see any reason why this game receives such special hype, let me elaborate, every single thing is better in Tiberium Wars than in Starcraft 2:"
► They are different games designed around different styles of gameplay, despite both being RTS.

-the graphics is better
► This isn't exactly true; Starcraft 2 employs much crisper and detailed graphics in thier latest material compared to C&C3: Tiberian Wars.

-the maps are far more detailed, weather effects, sun through moving clouds
► If you've seen the latest "Mar Sara" screenshots, you'll know that this isn't true. Starcraft II has massive room for detail within thier maps. Also, that "sun moving through the clouds" effect looks more like the map is underwater.

-the units are designed better and animated better, take just for example Orca and Predator tank, how they move, effects in the air and on ground when leaving dust trail, Predator can fire on the move, it is better animated than any vehicle in Starcraft 2, and that's just mentioning two simple units. The only thing that looks better in Starcraft 2 are infantry units because they are not grouped.
► Various Starcraft II units can attack on the move, as well as perform other unique tasks. Vehicles leave dust trails, as well. In Starcraft II, every unit basically has a passive ability unique to that unit alone, wether it be the Mutalisk's bouncing attack, to the Warp Ray's beam that increases in damage over time.

-you can crush various objects in the world, not like in Company of Heroes but still better than Starcraft 2.
► There are destructible doodads & boundries in Starcraft II.

Anyway every single aspect looks far superior in Tiberium Wars, the only thing Starcraft 2 might have is non linear campaign as opposed to global map and mission selection faking in Tiberium Wars where choosing one mission over the other has no effect on anything and you can't carry over veteran units like you could have in Company of Heroes. And since I mentioned Company of Heroes one would think that other games would follow new standards set in animation, graphics, physics and tactics by this amazing game.
► While Company of Heroes is indeed an amazing game, it's still a different game. Both games were made with different focal points. Company of Heros has great animations, although there is rarely more than 50 units on screen at a time; therefore the game (And players' machines) can support this. Graphics wise, both are impressive on different levels. You cannot judge the quality of the graphics when stylistically both games were made differently. In terms of physics, technically both run true 'physics' engines; physics is physics. It's basically impossible to compare tactics between the two games. Tactics that exist in Starcraft II gameplay might not exist in Company of Heroes, and vice versa. They are different games and therefore involve different tactics and strategy.

So what is it with Starcraft 2, from every standpoint it looks inferior, obsolete and cartoonish, and what's up with the Battlecruisers, one would think they would make them turn fluidly around according to physics and their size, not ugly jerky like that.
► People loved the first game, what's wrong with them having anticipation for the second? That's fine if you believe the game looks cartoonish and obsolete, that's your oppinion. The art designs of games are and should be different, or they would be extremely boring. As per Battlecruisers, gameplay is key above all else; adding realism there would impede that.

Can you tell me if in Starcraft 2 you can garrison buildings?
► No, and there's no need to. In Starcraft II you can create walls using your structures.

Can you tell me if you can garrison any vehicles(like APC or Hammerhead) creating many different combinations?
► No, and there's no need to. It doesn't fit with the game; when your army can easily grow to 150 units or more, manning vehicles as so would be a hassle. Also, only Terran uses real 'vehicles'.

Do you have Zone Troopers drop pods(visually stunning btw)?
► Drop Pods were in the game, but as of now removed for the time being. They were more visually pleasing than either of the game you're defending.

Can your infantry dig in?
► Starcraft II is more heavily based on macro-management to need that. Also, only one race really has 'infantry'.

Can tanks shoot while moving?
► Again, Terran is the only race with a real 'Tank'. Siege Tanks in Starcraft II have two modes, a normal cannon mode and a siege mode, for long range bombardment. They cannot move in Siege Mode.

Can you drop sensor pods like Orcas?
► If Starcraft II had sensor pods just like Orcas you would complain that they stole the idea and arn't unique enough. Starcraft II has it's own unique ideas.

Can you even upgrade your units?
► Yes, every unit is affected by some kind of upgrade; many unique to that unit type alone.

Can you airlift various units, not just infantry?
► Every race has a mean(s) of transportation, as well as several straight aerial units.

Can you have artillery spotters for Juggernauts shoot over entire map?
► Again, different games have different features, unless you like having every game be exactly the same in nature. There's many forms of recon, wether it be invisible units, radar, etc.

Can you tell me if you have a variety of support powers?
► You don't need support powers in Starcraft II... You control everything yourself. There's no air strike button; if you want an air strike, you build some air units and fly them in yourself. If you need reinforcements, you build units and bring them in.

Obviously you have no idea about Starcraft II, or even the original Starcraft's gameplay. You don't even seem aware that there are three races; two of which are alien races. Not every race has infantry, tanks, etc. You really should look into somthing before criticizing it.

 

@ Neon,

Great post. This is what articles are made of. Posted on the front page! I'd like to see more of this kind of stuff!

 

Lol, i think JackBlack should get some acknowledgement for the front page

After all, if it wasn't for his personal opinions, ( long extensive, passionate arguments ) it would not have caused Neon into action.

Btw, is TW's graphics similar in somewhat to Sc2?
I also want to point out, the mothership in TW will get PWNT by the Sc2s mothership. Compared to Sc2, the mothership in TW is a fruitloop.

 

@Redlazer, by stating all those questions I just dismantled the opposition that claimed I only like pretty stuff because I made a focus on how SC2 looks completely obsolete.

The second reason for stating those rhetorical questions was to show how confined Starcraft 2 will be, not venturing anywhere and not pushing envelope of RTS genre and not adding anything to its richness.