Better hurry to get your beta fix

[YourFace]

You basically said most of what I said xD. Except for the themes, I forgot to mention that one.

Its like comparing Fallout 3 to Oblivion

It's not even about the themes, if you think about the amount of options, Starcraft II would be massing and harassing. While Warcraft III is CC, getting items, and neutral units like the flying goblin thing that can carry units(forgot what it was called).
I'm not referring to massing futuristic units compared to using magic and heroes.
Starcraft is really massing units either in your base, on an expo, or near pylons. What else can you do?

Don't talk about the fact that you're massing medival units not future units. That has very little to do with the actually utilizing your skills, which I believe Warcraft does better.
You are mistaken if you think massing one or two units in your base is more fun than playing Warcraft.

 

[chanta45]

Lol@YourFace

Personally I played both games for years and I really do prefer starcraft.

Not being biased at all, I loved both games styles of play but you can't really say all starcraft is "massing and harassing" because really I could say the same as WC3. You either creep or harass, either rush or tech, and decide what you do. The real micro comes in with the heroes, and some casting with your tag along units as well as item composition/usage. You build expos but you don't really dedicate that much into them because they are just their to get your resources. So, warcraft3 is more small scale hero micro centered.

Starcraft I find is more of a true "RTS" so to speak of with a larger scale. With a larger unit cap and smaller "food" prices for units, you can get fairly large armies. When you build an expo, you need to build up defenses and you can decide how you want that base to produce units, like ground, air. etc. I also find I can largely use lower tier units consistantly in starcraft, unlike warcraft 3 where in no circumstances does mass Taurens get owned by mass grunts, whereas mass speedlings can outperform mass ultras in a few occasions. I find there is more macro (which I love, matter of opinion) in starcraft then warcraft.

I dunno, love the two but SC is my fav.

 

[NightShade]

warcraft is still played because it has a good world editor.
starcraft is still played because it has good gameplay.

I love the fantasy theme of warcraft because anything can happen. I'm probably going to have to wait until some good fantasy models come out before I attempt to do anything in the GE.

 

[punwisp]

It's not even about the themes, if you think about the amount of options, Starcraft II would be massing and harassing. While Warcraft III is CC, getting items, and neutral units like the flying goblin thing that can carry units(forgot what it was called).
I'm not referring to massing futuristic units compared to using magic and heroes.
Starcraft is really massing units either in your base, on an expo, or near pylons. What else can you do?

Don't talk about the fact that you're massing medival units not future units. That has very little to do with the actually utilizing your skills, which I believe Warcraft does better.
You are mistaken if you think massing one or two units in your base is more fun than playing Warcraft.

Massing and harassing? You obviously haven't played starcraft for very long, least not very good at it. It requires skill, if it required simple mass and win, starcraft wouldnt be popular. At all

And in normal melee masses you barely mass any units. You get a hero, and a couple tier 1 units in the beginning, and slowly work your way up.

Normally units cost 3x more than they do in Sc, and you use a lot less units, a LOT. Its far more hero centered, with a couple extra units for support, distraction or meat shields, or purely for some extra damage.

 

[YourFace]

Massing and harassing? You obviously haven't played starcraft for very long, least not very good at it. It requires skill, if it required simple mass and win, starcraft wouldnt be popular. At all

And in normal melee masses you barely mass any units. You get a hero, and a couple tier 1 units in the beginning, and slowly work your way up.

Normally units cost 3x more than they do in Sc, and you use a lot less units, a LOT. Its far more hero centered, with a couple extra units for support, distraction or meat shields, or purely for some extra damage.

Unfortunately we could play 20 games and you'd lose all of them. And starcraft II isn't popular because people appreciate the gameplay, it simply gets its fame from starcraft I which I admit I never played.

Plus starcraft II isn't hero centered at all, it's more strategy and technique required than warcraft. However, warcraft still has more features and options for a wider range, compared to starcraft II's high necessity of strategy.

I'm actually less bias because I never played or came to appreciate Starcraft I. The wait has been quite long, so any starcraft fan would want it and brag about it in some war. Especially since Blizzard delayed it for 2 years.

 

[Sevion]

Clearly cut, Starcraft 1 and 2 are both more Micro and Macro juggling.

Warcraft 3 is more pure Macro with a few Micro concepts thrown in.

 

[YourFace]

Clearly cut, Starcraft 1 and 2 are both more Micro and Macro juggling.

Warcraft 3 is more pure Macro with a few Micro concepts thrown in.

. That is true in dota, but it's the complete opposite in ladder. Not that you need macro in dota, but you don't need micro in it either >:O

 

[punwisp]

Unfortunately we could play 20 games and you'd lose all of them. And starcraft II isn't popular because people appreciate the gameplay, it simply gets its fame from starcraft I which I admit I never played.

Plus starcraft II isn't hero centered at all, it's more strategy and technique required than warcraft. However, warcraft still has more features and options for a wider range, compared to starcraft II's high necessity of strategy.

I'm actually less bias because I never played or came to appreciate Starcraft I. The wait has been quite long, so any starcraft fan would want it and brag about it in some war. Especially since Blizzard delayed it for 2 years.

Thats a rather random and stupid statement put together, basing this on what? Because I said its not just mass and harass? That it requires skill?

it simply gets its fame from starcraft I which I admit I never played.

How do you think WoW first became popular? How do you think Wc3 first got popular?

And yea, logically all the starcraft fans would flock to Sc2, after all Starcraft 1 revolutionized RTS gaming, and this is its sequel.

Especially since Blizzard delayed it for 2 years

And this is bad how? The longer they take to make the game, the better it is, every game since the original warcraft was a complete success, and each game/franchise after that was perfection in its own genre, and was a complete success. Starcraft 2 will be no different in full release.

Plus starcraft II isn't hero centered at all, it's more strategy and technique required than warcraft. However, warcraft still has more features and options for a wider range, compared to starcraft II's high necessity of strategy.

Well... it is you know a Real Time Strategy game. Like most RTS games its focuses on the army rather than a single unit with a couple helpers. And I believe we already made it clear Starcraft wasn't a hero focused game

 

[YourFace]

Thats a rather random and stupid statement put together, basing this on what? Because I said its not just mass and harass? That it requires skill?

How do you think WoW first became popular? How do you think Wc3 first got popular?

And yea, logically all the starcraft fans would flock to Sc2, after all Starcraft 1 revolutionized RTS gaming, and this is its sequel.

And this is bad how? The longer they take to make the game, the better it is, every game since the original warcraft was a complete success, and each game/franchise after that was perfection in its own genre, and was a complete success. Starcraft 2 will be no different in full release.



Well... it is you know a Real Time Strategy game. Like most RTS games its focuses on the army rather than a single unit with a couple helpers. And I believe we already made it clear Starcraft wasn't a hero focused game

I'm basing it on the fact that you're a beginner and I'm in platnium league with over 60 wins. and I'm saying I'm not biased. Where do you see me saying that Blizzard is bad for taking so long.(Then you make a reply to Blizzard is bad taking so long because you didn't read the whole sentence.)

 

[Joker(Div)]

Clearly cut, Starcraft 1 and 2 are both more Micro and Macro juggling.

Warcraft 3 is more pure Macro with a few Micro concepts thrown in.

You mean pure micro with minimal macro.

 

[Samael88]

You mean pure micro with minimal macro.

Na, starcraft has always been about the macro guys, getting many bases and throwing everything at you opponent at once
I for one is a bit disappointed with SC2 not having more epic sized battles.
And btw, starcraft1 was basically a space remake of warcraft games

 

[INCINERATE]

from my experience

warcraft 3 is alot of micro with a little bit of macro.


and sc2 is alot of macro with a little bit of micro.
the micro in sc2 is almost non existent and almost is entirely made up of only "hit then move tactics" Hit,move,hit,move,hit,move .. thats the only micro u ever see in sc2. if one calls this "incredible micro" then i assume you would also say dota requires" incredible micro", since the only micro aspect of it is "last hitting creeps".


in war3, the only macro u ever see is pretty easy, units take forever to build and due to upkeep limits, units take even longer to come out, therefore its alot easier on the macro side compared to sc2

 

[BANANAMAN]

Starcraft no matter what Version will always be.

Don't you even argue about it.

 

[Arkless]

from my experience

warcraft 3 is alot of micro with a little bit of macro.


and sc2 is alot of macro with a little bit of micro.
the micro in sc2 is almost non existent and almost is entirely made up of only "hit then move tactics" Hit,move,hit,move,hit,move .. thats the only micro u ever see in sc2. if one calls this "incredible micro" then i assume you would also say dota requires" incredible micro", since the only micro aspect of it is "last hitting creeps".


in war3, the only macro u ever see is pretty easy, units take forever to build and due to upkeep limits, units take even longer to come out, therefore its alot easier on the macro side compared to sc2

war3 is micro based, that is for sure, but sc2 is both! A combination of micro and macro. You got enough units wich need a direct cast order.
Abilities are way stronger then the normal attack, if you can (for example) use your mindcontroll as zerg to a far extend, you are sure to beat any big units... how about psi storm from protoss? Or just a bit of tank micro to gain a huge advantage in army size (I consider the siege mode as an ability which you have to micro, just standing around wont do... or changing while in range of your oponents)?