bill r Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 i personaly like swgb better..what do u guys think of warcraft3..i would like swgb to have graphics like that..but still swgb has it beat..tell me what u think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 I have both games and i prefer SWGB, especially with the CC expansion! I find that Warcraft III gets a bit monotonous, whereas with SWGB the strategy is better and the options are almost endless... i agree about the graphics though - that would be nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 SWGB is a far all round better game....graphics.. ohwell, we cant have everything. Oh and by the way bill... create a thread like you did flaming someone and i WILL ban you from here... clear? thank you DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Straykker Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Heh, long time no see UK. Glad to see your still showing the b00ns whose the boss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 SWGB by a long shot. And if you dont like the graphics, you can always close your eyes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 Warcraft3 is a clickfest and lacks big strategies while SWGB requires more thinking but a little more strategy could make the game harder and of course funnier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 You say clickfest, too? I thought that only simwiz and his "people" said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Hey dude! I say what I wanna say! By the way, I ain't one of SimWiz's ''people'' !!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill r Posted September 16, 2002 Author Share Posted September 16, 2002 ohh sorry uk.get the stick out of your ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 bye bye bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Luke, that was an jab directed to simwiz. I personally dont care how others talk, all i worry about is what others say. Sorry if i offended you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Sith, clickfest is hardly some word that I made up, so stop acting like it is. If an RTS has no econ and no strategy and is a boring piece of crap then it is a clickfest. If you like those kind of games so much then go play WC3 and try to pass the learning campaign in only one month, so you can beat your SWGB learning campaign time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 SithMaster: "If you don't like the graphics than close your eyes" Maybe when Dream-VR becomes an everyday reality then it will be possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 I am sorry to say this on a GB forum, but.... WARCRAFT ALL THE TIME WARCRAFT RULES BIG TIME! Better graphics, better gameplay (after my opinion), much larger difference from race to race, though still great balance, there is mages and cool heroes in Warcraft, and very important: 15643 TIMES BETTER STORY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 Wacraft 3 is a realy bored game i only played it for 4 hours all time and the graphics are a bid messy and to cartoony its not my pc have a gaforce 4 so warcraft 3 is the worst rts (rpg) ever i was thought it would be a nice game but i was wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 I was actually a bit disappointed first time I played swgb, after all it is little more than Age of Empires 2 in star wars universe. I am sure that Lucasarts have made a deal with microsoft about copying AoE2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 Yeah they did make a deal with ensemble and microsoft, but IMO SWGB is much better than AoK (but not AoM:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 I must say that i got a bit bored with Warcraft 3 after a few weeks - but the more i play SWGB the more i enjoy it. I'll give it a try again - maybe i missed something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thajason Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 WC3 was kind of boring for me. I did play it a week though. Took me 1 1/2 days to beat the campains (way to easy on hardest level). The multiplayer game is more interesting in difficulty. There just wasn't to much different content in the game, stating from the point of view of different attack and defend routines. It pretty much becomes the same ol same ol really fast. Don't get me wrong though eventhough the campains were way to easy, the story line was good and was fun to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 I thought Warcraft III was a really good game. Its graphics were great- just because your computer can't handle them doesn't mean they're bad. The storyline was very good, traditional of Blizzard, and the cinematics were awesome. Gameplay was a bit limited, with the tech and unit tree being very small. The game was designed to focus far more on battle and far less on economy, base building, and micromanagement of your workers. Some say this is bad. For me, it was OK. Every single RTS game these days seems to require huge amounts of work on your economy before you can even consider battle. The single player campaigns had interesting and varied gameplay backed up by nice graphics, sound and cinematics. The concept of hero exp and items was well done, and as I've said in the "Ideas for SW:GB 2," I think it would work even better in the SW universe. There were some really good comedic touches, primarily with the unit responses. They really brought it alive in a way that GB doesn't. You must admit, the storylines of the GB campaigns weren't exactly top-rate. Many of the missions were practically AoE missions with a new (Star Wars) look. And I'm not just talking about the learning campaign, which was only bearable because the Star Wars factor made it fun. The Scenario Editor for WC3 was easy and quick to use, and triggers and the like were easily set, rather like the StarCraft editor. AoE's editor is getting rather outdated. The multiplayer (or Custom Game, or whatever) was what let WC3 down. Back to the typical base-build-army-kill-enemies 'strategies,' which aren't really strategies because they're so basic. Not to say it's too easy or anything, just that it's been done so many times. The heroes made it a lot better though. GB definitely wins hands down in the 'custom game' arena. Varied strategies and a wide range of units, coupled with the fact that it's Star Wars, makes it a whole lot of fun. Now that I've finished the WC3 campaigns, I barely ever play online or just play a normal Custom Game, while I do often come back to play GB's Custom Games. I guess that's really the deciding factor. GB has a large replay value, while WC does not. But still, the single player game plays a large part, so I'd have to declare it a tie. LA could learn a lot from WC3 and many other upcoming RTS games. Move to a new engine and put more work into the campaigns and GB has it hands-down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Dad Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 I liked them both, each for different reasons. The one rub against WC3 is the limited viewable area. I mean really. Surely blizzard could make a game that can handle higher resolutions. It's hard at times dealing with strategy when you cant see all the units fighting. However, SWGB has the same sort issue when the long ranged units get involved. Even so, they are still fun to play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Normal RST (like SWGB) are 70% recourse gathering and 30% fighting. Warcraft III is 30% recourse gathering and 70% fighting. I don't know about you, but I prefer the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Resource gathering makes the game less who can click the create button faster, and more who is a better player. I personally like AoM's 50/50 split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Well.... sith, I don't know what makes you think that. It's not about hitting the "create" button faster. It's about fielding different armies, different strategies, use of special abilities eg. spells, countering those spells, etc. etc. Economy is about hitting the "build" button faster, if that's the way you want to put it. Producing more workers, sending those workers off to get resources, putting buildings down in a certain pattern (if that counts as an interesting part of the game), etc. Defensive structures and the like is far more of a "battle" part than an "economy" part, so don't try to bring those up. AoM sounds pretty good, but that's not what the debate is about. What kind of balance, in your opinion, does GB have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 This is LUCAS FORUMS. Don't ask stupid thing like :'WC3 or SWGB?' It is OBVIOUS that everybody (or almost) here will prefer SWGB... But because I like defend my ideas I will tell you my opinion... WarCraft III is much better than SWGB... And I have played both games since they are out so I know what I'm talking about. Why? Simple : Graphics : Tell me that SWGB's graphics are better then WC3's and I'll kill you. WC3 wins here. Gameplay : WC3 is far more strategic. Why? You can't get hundreds of units and you actually have to MICROMANAGE. The four races in WC3 are completly different. The 8 civs in SWGB are... well... not SO different. WC3 wins here. Story : I would say they are both equal here. WC3's story isn't that great, since the most fun part is multiplayer on BATTLE.NET (not some crappy thing like 'The Zone'. On the other side, SWGB's story would have been better if it was the movie's story. That's a tie. Replay Value : Once you have finished the campaigns, SWGB gets more boring... You can still play on the zone, but it gets repetitive... WC3's campaign is more a training; it'll get you ready for b.net. WC3 wins here. Sound : I have to say here that SWGB wins. LucasArts' sounds are really great. Final score : WC3 : 3 SWGB : 1 1 tie Even if I play almost only play WC3, I still SOMETIMES play SWGB... But don't forget that we are comparing here a new game (WC3) and a game that was based on some old game (SWGB almost = AoE). So, my final opinion is : WHY DID LUCASARTS MADE SWGB BASED ON AGE OF EMPIRES??? Cmon guys, just imagine what it would have been if based on something like SC... or better yet, WC3! *Sorry if I hurted your feelings in this small review* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.