warcraft3 or swgb

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

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.

 

IMO:

 

First = RTS

 

Last = RT; or Clickfest; or mindless spell-casting game, etc.

 

I would personally like a 60% econ 40% fighting or something near there. Some emphasis on economy is necessary IMO to preserve strategy, replayability, and fun. As many have said, Clickfests such as WC3 have almost no replayability.

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

I'd prefer 60% econ 40% fighting. I'd prefer if it was easier to attack in T1. Making the game faster would make for a better more intense game.

[Sithmaster_821]

Attacking in t1 isnt included because it makes the game too much like the Warcrafts, when rushing is the only option, nd the winner is the won who rushes first. The t1 break allows for someone to get their econ started and the foundations of their army built so that they can begin fighting right away. In AoM, despite the fact that you cant build practically any armed units (except heroes), classical seems more like a t3 than a t2 because it tends to be long, full of battles, and there is way more unit selection. There isnt this pressing urge to age up in AoM, something many AoK and SWGB players like me had to learn the hard way (i went to heroic quick one game, and was summarily beaten by a classical army even though i was an age ahead. It is better to wait and build an army and attack than it is to horde resources for a fast age advancement.

[simwiz2]

I agree it is good that AoM is not the frantic Age race that AoK was.

[CorranSec]

Um... Andy, either you made a mistake in your post, or you're contradicting yourself.

You would prefer more economy than battle, yet you like fast-paced and intense games. Well, if you look at the post that comes straight after yours, Sithmaster has pointed out that the Warcrafts are very focussed on rushing. So why do you prefer economy-based games (eg. SWGB)? Or have I missed something?

 

And actually, Warcraft III doesn't have to be about rushing. Sure, rushing may be a useful strategy, but if you beat back your opponent's rush and build up your defenses instead of rushing him/her, you can settle in for the long haul.

[Arthur2]

I am not really Biased,

so I won't use SWGB, I'll use AOK and EE instead

I think War3 is a good game, for common game players

cauz what they prefer is something simple, and gives u the intensity of game playing , just like Mcdonalds...Fast Food...blah blah blah...

but then AOK and EE are focused on the strategy and tactics, it's more suitable for heavy-RTS players...(like me )

 

Warcraft 3...hmm

ppl argue that it's focused more on the battle and is more strategic cause u need unit control.

Well first of all, unit control is not strategy, it's tactic for battle...strategy is long term planning which warcraft 3 really lacks...cause the game goes too fast and the map is too small!!! if u lose one battle u die....and u dun need much planning, u just build units and attack...(dun even need siege)

 

and seriously, the unit control in Warcraft 3 is kinda poor

because melee and ranged attack is only like...couple units away, that's no use....and the battles are short..besides, the units don't really have any bonus attack against other units.....and tell u what, protecting ur hero is not unit control...

 

I like AOK better cause it requires more time to think ...and the siege process is really awesome, unlike Warcraft 3 u just rush in and kill everything without really thinking (cause the towers suck anywayz, comparing to AOK)

 

I am not saying that Warcraft 3 is a bad game

(otherwise i wouldn't have bought it...arghhhh)

it's just different from AOK...

AOK and Warcraft have entirely different usergroups..

(common vs. RTS-maniacs)

[MadrixTF]

My two cents:

 

The fact that WC3 lends itself to a "Rush" strategy is exactly what i don't like about the game. I prefer to have a balance between Econ and Battle. Also, the maps in WC3 are not the greatest and tend to be repetative in my opinion, even though the graphics are good, and that is why i got bored with WC3 after a while. On the other hand SWGB, has many Map options and also Gameplay options, which i have no doubt will keep me playing SWGB for a very long time.

 

Both games are good, but SWGB is a better long-term investment in terms of enjoyment and gameplay - i never get tired or bored of playing SWGB.

 

Darth54: I strongly disagree with you in your assessment. Here is my opinion of your rating system:

 

1) Graphics - Ok, you win on this one

2) Gameplay - You MUST be kidding! SWGB has far more

strategic options, the strategy of WC3 is repetative

3) Story - Definately not equal - Star Wars is one of the

best stories ever written - billions of fans can't all be wrong

4) Sound - SWGB wins here again.

 

Totals: WC3 = 1, SWGB = 3

 

At the end of the day it will always come down to opinion, but the facts can't be changed - SWGB is a far better RTS than WC3, even if it uses a tried and proven engine. I think they made a smart move when they used the AoK engine...

[Arthur2]

Darth..I am sorry but I have to disagree as well

 

1) Graphics - OK, who cares...graphics is just shallow stuff

 

2) Gameplay - omg, that's the dumbest I've ever hard, Warcraft 3 being strategic? managing your units in battle is not strategy, it's tactics....do you know the difference between a strategic bomber and tactical bomber (it exaplains the difference between strategy and tactics)????? strategy is long term...in War3, the map is way too small, and it's damn hard to revive your base once ur base is destroyed (even if u got money)...ppl can find u within no time and u'll be doomed again...and u dun really need siege weapons in War3...u just use all these crappy units , the defense towers suck...the game is relied too much on the hero....and there are only two resources....it limited the strategic possibilities in War3...

 

hmm also tactics...the units' attack range is way too short...not very different from Melee units...that's one thing about war3...and the map is too damn small, ppl walk too damn fast...if u think moving ur hero back is called managing ur troops then...OKAY...whatever

 

 

3) Story - Blizzard Stories don't make sense....Starcraft has one of the worst stories...and Warcraft, argh...i dun even want to read the plotline...

4) Sound - actually i think war3 is better in terms of sound effects...SWGB has some crappy sound effects for dark trooper, destroyer droids...the only sound effect set i am satisfied with is ATAT

 

I am not saying that War3 is a bad "game"

it's just...a bad RTS game...cause it's too limited

well, not everybody likes to play deep/complicated games like AOK/SWGB...so yeah...we are just different

ppl have different opionions, some ppl like fastfood strategy games, some ppl like long and brain-cell-killing strategy games....

we got different tastes

 

[CorranSec]

OK. Here goes:

 

1) Graphics. Graphics isn't "shallow stuff." Graphics are just as important as sound and gameplay to most game manufacturers, and graphics probably count the most in terms of sales- ie, you pick up the box, you can't hear the sound or play the game, so you look at the amazing graphics and say "Wow, this game looks good." Of course, not everyone does that, but graphics does count for more than the rest (unless you get to play it somehow).

 

2) Gameplay. There are both strategy and tactics in WCIII. They are both far more varied because of the unique unit sets- ie, the Night Elves set up their bases far differently to the way the Undead would. In GB, all races have the same units (apart from UU) so it gets a little monotonous.

You can change the game speed, I think, so if you don't like units being fast....

You don't have to use any particular unit. It's up to the personal preference. Some people like to use siege units as an integral part of their strategy.

Heroes are a great development in the RTS genre. They add an RPG flavour into your traditional game. You can't win a game with them, though- you still need your traditional armies and the like.

 

3) Story- Blizzard stories are fantastic. The GB stories were OK, but I hated the way they weren't linked in the slightest and were remarkably small. And there was no Naboo campaign.

Consider these stories (spoilers!)

Clone Campaigns

(Confederacy I) Kill all these people in this canyon so that your grand leader can meet at the start and end. Has cinematic thingys at the start and end.

Warcraft III

(Human I) Lead a team of troops to an embattled settlement, completing side quests and levelling your hero. Has nice in-game cinematics with interesting characters.

 

It's obvious which is better. I won't even start on the later and more detailed missions.........

 

4) Sound- WarIII had great unit responses, though I prefer the Star Wars music. This is kinda personal preference.

 

I'm not saying either are bad games. They're both equally good.

 

 

Madrix- If you like a balanced game, why do you like GB? It seems to lend itself more to economy than battle.

[Breton]

1. Graphics: Warcraft big time

 

2. Gameplay: You won't nesciserely win the battle by rushing. Warcraft is based mostly on who is the best to control their units in battle and who uses the hero and units best. And also very important, who is the best defender? Defending in Warcraft is far from just gathering a random group of units, it is very much strategy with what units you should build, the number of towers you build (they don't stink) and very important, where you build them. In warcraft there may not be as many units as in SWGB, but at least all of the units in W3 are different, unlike SWGB. Warcraft wins.

 

3.

3) Story - Definately not equal

 

You are at least right about that. The story in Warcraft (and also Starcraft) is great, there is much happening, awsome cutscenes, and good plots. The quality of the story of SWGB is faaaar from the movie one, after all, it is nothing more than some EU crap linked together. Warcraft wins.

 

4. Sound: Warcraft wins again here, the sound in W3 is like being in the world of warcraft itself.

 

Warcraft: 4 SWGB: 0

[lukeiamyourdad]

wtf are you doing here if you prefer warcraft?

[Sithmaster_821]

Graphics-Seeing that Warcraft is in 3d and is using a far newer engine, there is no contest.

 

Gameplay-Here is where SWGB econ and random maps beat the so called strategy of WC3. It it is far better in this critical catergory.

 

Story-Blizzard always has very good stories and SWGB had very bad ones, even for a standard RTS.

 

Sound-They are tied here

 

So its 3 to 2, but gameplay is way more important than the other fluff stuff.

[Arthur2]

Graphics- I dun care that much about graphics...War3 wins

 

Gameplay- LOL did u read my thread? Unit control is not strategy, it's tactics... the way u construct ur base...that's only a slight difference...at the end it's just mining gold and cutting wood, waitng for opponents to come...defense....omg, the defense in war3 really sux, SWGB towers are way stronger, and it takes more strategic planning before attacking in SWGB than in War3.

War3, again, the map is too small....attacking is basically just going in the front door, because the defense building suck anywayz, it makes no major difference how u enter the enemy base. War3, unit control....the units die tooo fast , and the battle range is too short.. the unit control u are talking about is probably moving ur more expensive units to the back...

 

Story-good stories? hmmm no judgement then...i played starcraft and warcraft, the stories sound really weird to me.

 

Sound-War3 wins, why do u think War3 only has 4 civs, and it fills up the entire CD? becoz it's got lots of sound files and graphics files...that's why.

 

u can't just say it's # to #, as a RTS game, story and graphics really isn't that important comparing to Gameplay

[Arthur2]

This is how most ppl play on Battlenet

i'll use general terms

build altar --> build barracks --> build hero --> build ghouls/huntresses/ whatever...

 

yipee* let's go attack

and then 10 seconds later u see this "help, help, help"

and then all ur forces clash

if the defending team fails then the team loses the game

 

War3 lacks strategy becoz it's built for short games and short term plans....u dun't really think about launching a huge and effective siege at a certain time or certain circumstances....

most of the time u just throw ur forces over...

[MadrixTF]

So, i think the consensus is as follows:

 

WC3 is a good Tactical fighting game with good graphics and good sound.

 

SWGB is a good RTS game where you have to use your brain.

 

I like RTS games and that is why i don't like WC3 as much as SWGB- WC3 is too tactical and gets really boring after a few games = early end of life for the product.

[Arthur2]

W3 is not too tactical

it's just less strategic

i dun think wc3 is any better than SWGB regarding tactics..

anywayz....both good games, Wc3....very good time killer

[lukeiamyourdad]

WC 3 is like all the other Blizzard RTS. Very short games....I Star Craft, it was all about rushes. I will tell you why: no tech levels.

[CorranSec]

Luke's dad- I'm here because I like this game and I want to contribute my opinion. Is that a bad thing?

About the tech levels thing, both Starcraft and Warcraft (SC especially) have tech trees which you must work your way up. For example, it's guaranteed to be rather late in a game of WCIII when players begin fielding Chimaeras and Frost Wyrms, just the same as Battlecruisers and Carriers in SC.

 

No matter what people say or prefer about tactics, tech levels, graphics or whatever, it is clear that LA could learn from the success (in a manner of speaking) of WCIII and factor some of its good points into their RTS games.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Corran- why are you telling me this? did I say something agaisnt you?

[CorranSec]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

wtf are you doing here if you prefer warcraft?

 

I thought this may have been aimed at me. Obviously not. Sorry.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I don't aim anything at people who I think are good guys;)

[Arthur2]

hmmm I play Warcraft

but then I think the tech tree is kind of messed up

I've see people use cheap units and defeat like a huge group of fully upgraded Frost Worms...There is really little difference between big and small units...

 

at the end, ppl still use huntresses, ghouls, shamen....

it's all the same thru out the game...that's why it gets really boring after a few games

[Arthur2]

and heroes/magic kind ruins the fun of the game

in W3 if u have some good lvl 6 heroes then other units don't matter as much...

[CorranSec]

Are you mad? Heroes are great! Heroes are one of the main high points of the game. It's ridiculous to say that high-level heroes make other units obsolete; you always need a mixed force to win any battle, and heroes can be easily overwhelmed by masses of enemies (and of course other Heroes).

[Arthur2]

oh, I AM SORRY

I guess I have different opinion

is that my fault?

I think the heroes thing is stupid,

sometimes I feel that Warcraft 3 is a unsuccessful RPG game...u can even hiro mercenary and buy items...

They try to make the game special by ruin the essence of RTS games...