DarthMuffin Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 We all know that WC3 owns SWGB, but those ppl in Galactic Discussion really piss me off. They all say that 'WC3 sucks cuz it isn't strategic, etc.' I played both since they are out, and I know that WC3 completly owns SWGB. In fact, I have completly stopped to play SWGB in favor of WC3. Those ppl in GD can't see the game for what it really is : A BAD COPY OF AOE... under the Star Wars franchise. LucasArts connot even create their own original games : JK2=Quake arena, SWGB=AoE2, Knights of the Old Republic=Neverwinter Nights. (Galaxy excluded, as well as other good games) And where's the LucasArts' Battle.net??? (What is the Zone anyway???) Lets get back to SWGB vs WC3. Graphics : WC3 got better graph... we all know this. Story : WC3's story is not SO good. I have to admit that SWGB's better. But who really cares about story when you can play on b.net??? GamaPlay : SWGB : whoever has the most units win. WC3 : whoever has the most skills win. SWGB=8 not-so-different-civs *one unique per civ* WC3=4 completly different races, yet equal. Don't get me wrong. I am a HUGE SW fan... and I really liked some of LucasArsts Game (JK2, for example). All I want is to have ppl realize the facts : SWGB could better and more original... Just imagine what it would have been if based on StarCraft's engine! Those who disagree, go play WC3, and come tell me if you still like SWGB better, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 What is the big deal about this game??? Ive played about 100 rts games and i can say without a doubt this one has the shallowest gameplay i have ever seen in an rts game. Strategy???? are you kidding there is no strategy in this game and if there is i havent seen it. I played the game on the hardest difficilty and went through the whole game with only 2 game overs. Anyone who thinks there is strategy here must be 9 years old and was held back in school 2 years straight because this is an rts for dummies type game. Wheres all the options??? what the heck kind of rts is it that has such a limited amount of things you can upgrade?? You build troops and go kill enemies and buildings thats the extent of gameplay. Multiplayer is a joke to 90 percent of the people cheat ive watched about 30 of my replays and almost everyone i played cheat,what a damn joke. blizzard is getting even more pitiful with every sorry game they come out with. warcraft 3 Graphics : 7 (to messy) Gameplay : 5 Sound: 7 Multiplay : 4 SWGB Graphics : 6 Gameplay : 8 sound : 8 Multiplay : 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamelessSith Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar What is the big deal about this game??? Ive played about 100 rts games and i can say without a doubt this one has the shallowest gameplay i have ever seen in an rts game. Strategy???? are you kidding there is no strategy in this game and if there is i havent seen it. I played the game on the hardest difficilty and went through the whole game with only 2 game overs. Anyone who thinks there is strategy here must be 9 years old and was held back in school 2 years straight because this is an rts for dummies type game. Wheres all the options??? what the heck kind of rts is it that has such a limited amount of things you can upgrade?? You build troops and go kill enemies and buildings thats the extent of gameplay. Multiplayer is a joke to 90 percent of the people cheat ive watched about 30 of my replays and almost everyone i played cheat,what a damn joke. blizzard is getting even more pitiful with every sorry game they come out with. I am a big time Blizzard fan, but I must admit I agree with you on some aspects. On blizzard strategy games, (Ask Darth Fergie about this. He's heard the tales of I've told) you get wiped out easily. The computer has an advantage (To the point I wonder if the AI gets to see the whole map and just toys with you), and before you know it (Especially on Starcraft), you're being wiped to the ground by an endless number of zerg. If you survive that, then you win. There's no fun in that... On Battle.Net, there ARE TONS OF CHEATERS, but that doesn't mean they all cheat. I like GB's multiplayer better, personally, because the overall GB players are nicer than the WC3 players, NOT the "superiority" between the two. Half of the WC3 players out there are horrible at typing or carrying out a decent conversation, so you lose the other part of the gaming experience: Communication with people from other countries/states/provinces. Once again, opinions are opinions. Personally, I like them both graphics-wise and playability-wise. WC3 isn't whack like starcraft's AI, and it's 3D. Now that I think of it... I liked Battle Realms better than WC3 on some fronts. Played it at my cousin's place, and it was excellent for LAN play. Anyone here played Battle Realms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted October 22, 2002 Author Share Posted October 22, 2002 WC3 isn't a RTS. It's a RPS : ROLE PLAYING strategy. That's why you can't upgrade many things and create many troops. WC3 is MICROmanagement and SWGB MACROmanagement. Oh, and one last thing : SWGB players on the Zone : 106 CC players on the Zone : 219 Total : 325 WC3 players on Battle.net : USEast : 27953 USWest : 28021 Asia : 28064 Europe : 28103 Total : 112141 Difference : 111816 I took these numbers at 8:25 PM, New York's Eastern Time on Monday, October the 21, 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 i personally think wc3 is a much better game. Better in the definition, playing both games, i enjoyed wc3 more and i played it more, which to me allows me to define it as the better of the two. Darth54s comparison in the last thread was a very good and accurate one. Wc3 is more of a roleplaying game, in that your role is that of your hero. It's kind of a split between role playing and rts, but all in all a terrific game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 WC3 smashes GB by a HUGE maragin. Not EVEN close. Numero Uno: GB runs on a dated engine. An engine that we've ALL used a million times before GB even came out! It also has the same feel as the AoK games even though it claims to avoid this. WC3 on the other hand, it takes a roleplaying craze and puts it into strategy with a very very good meld. Each hero has skills it can learn. You put points into those skills as you go along and thus a small roleplaying element is added. Another feel into the game is the various powers that each unit may possess. Units such as Mages and such will have various spells to cast on the enemy which YOU may cast when YOU want to. No autocasting unless you enable it on certain powers. That means some units can have many multiple attacks and sometimes one attack can render a certain unit helpless (i.e.- Raiders ensnare flying units so that ground units can bash them). Numero Dos?...tres?...oh well who's counting?: GB is basically no REAL diversity in the civs. They are set at near equals to each other no matter what. Oh sure, you may see an occasionaly unit forbidden to a side or a percentage change here and there, but the sides are essentially the same. You have NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER going from the Empire (super powerfull manufacturer and superpowerful, etc) to the Rebels (small band of missfits who are resisting Empire). You would THINK that the Rebel units would be more guerella warfare oriented and the Empire more SUPER DOMINATING. But no. You find that each side is nearly the same. Almost perfectly intact. Oh sure. Each side has a special unit or two. Big whup. It does NOTHING to change the overall feel for the side. I'm afraid that the wookies arn't going to JUST need to LOOK like wookies to feel like wookies. Essentially you can't tell much difference in any side. WC3 has a tech chart of 13 units for each side. 13. Let me repeat that again for those in the back...13. That small size means that the creators can excersize their rights to make each side have a new feel. The suceed greatly. The sides are all different in manyways. The Elves can conserve wood and their buildings can fight, but their workers are easy pray to even a lowly peasant. They build by losing their workers in the new living building that they have made. They are also less close combat oriented. Most of their units are focused on more lng range attacks. Sure they have some cannon fodder for up front battles, but their main attack force will be made of archers that will slaughter the forces held up by your fodder. The Undead can possess the dead units and can even reincarnate them. That means if you just lost a very powerful task force on the front, the Undead could raise that task force through reincarnation and send that exact same force right back into your base. All of the sides feel different and do not get repetative amazingly enough. Even though you have but 13 units for your side to produce (including heros) you will never even notice it. In fact sometimes I find it overwhelming with just those few unit types on the field. WC3 is a much better game. The race isn't even close. WC3 also has a thriving mod community. Thousands of mods have been released all over and more come daily. Mods and new levels and many many miniature RPGs have been made. This game is the new wave. You can either take it...or be swallowed by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Also GB basically has the same set of units that just look different apart from the small advantage in the resource collection or the unique unit there isn't much difference in what race you choose, but with wc3, race affects strategy SO MUCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Originally posted by krkode Also GB basically has the same set of units that just look different apart from the small advantage in the resource collection or the unique unit there isn't much difference in what race you choose, but with wc3, race affects strategy SO MUCH! ...good summary of what I just said;) Much shorter...and direct to the point! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 I have not yet played WC3 yet ... But, c'mon ... there tottaly different games. WC3 is a Blizzard RTS / RPS SWGB is an Ensemble RTS (the engine) I myself am more of an Ensemble person, but others like the Blizzard approach more. Both have their great set of games. WC3 is 3D SWGB is 2D Yeah, but SWGB uses an old engine, but a succesfull engine. The AoK engine has proven himself to be one of the best, SWGB is of an equalily quality. WC3 has a new engine, wich looks good. I can't tell you about gameplay. Time will tell if it's as succesfull as SC (wich I think it is) New engine doesn't have to be better. You can stick with an old engine ánd deliver a good game (ask Chris Sawyer) WC3 is fantasy SWGB is Star Wars SWGB is the only good RTS game with a Star Wars license. That alone is a good reason to buy The REAL comparison would be ... AoM against WC3. But that wouldn't be fair, WC3 doesn't stand a chanche against thát giant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 I agree with you on that last one YD. AoM seems like a much wider game than a 4 race, 13 unit game. It'll probably have more MEAT in it... But the only people who might still stick with wc3 and may feel it is better are the fantasy freaks or the lotr fans... (i'm not saying a lotr fan shouldn't like aom), but greek mythology just doesn't appeal to some people. And small scale warfare is something i love (which is abundant in wc3), because to my tastes, it gives me more of an opportunity to win than large 150-200 unit scale warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Originally posted by Young David The REAL comparison would be ... AoM against WC3. But that wouldn't be fair, WC3 doesn't stand a chanche against thát giant. Oh really? Somehow I doubt that AoM is THAT good. You're really cutting WC3 short with that statment. Especially when you havn't played it. I don't need predictions. Heck we predicted GB would be awesome...unfortunatly...I wasn't. It was a serious let down to me. I may as well have just bought an X-Pac for AoM because that was the exact feel of it. At that time though, I had pretty much stopped playong AoK because I had beaten it and had played skirmish so many times the comp was getting too predictable. When I picked up GB it was more of the same. So predictions don't mean jack to me. Personally I will not buy AoM. I'll skip it in favor of C&C Generals. (I've played WAY too many medievil RTSs recently and I'm pretty bored of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Trust me AOM wil BLOW everybody AWAY There are so many things in this game! i can't belief it , its more like a dream come true i have been wating all my life for a game like this AOM ROCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 If I get AoM, it will be for the Norse mythology, not greek. I do think it will appeal to those who love fantasy since so much of Fantasy is taken from mythology (norse in paticular). (Tolkien got the names of the dwarves from Norse mythology, and the writing of the elves is very similar to Norse Runes). I haven't decide if I'm going to buy the game, but most likely I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Personally I will not buy AoM. I'll skip it in favor of C&C Generals. (I've played WAY too many medievil RTSs recently and I'm pretty bored of it) I'll second that although AoM can't be considered medieval, it has the same feel to it... whereas WC3 is cool for fantasy buffs, and Generals...well Generals is just cool No way i'm missing generals...i hope it will live upto my expectations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 It had better live up to my expectations. BTW, one of my expectations is that it blows AoM out of the water in sales:p C & C Generals is just too cool to pass up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamelessSith Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Yeah, I CAN'T wait for C & C Generals to come out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 LucasArts connot even create their own original games : JK2=Quake arena, SWGB=AoE2, Knights of the Old Republic=Neverwinter Nights. Sorry, i bring this up so late, but only now did i actually notice this part in Darth's post! I can't agree with you there. Maybe some of their latest games have been kinda ripped off of other games, but definitely, Lucas Arts is probably THE best game making company in the world, in my opinion. Monkey Island, Indiana Jones (early ones) are classic...probably the BEST games ever made. I have never known another game that was as good as the above mentioned....phew, i can't express it enough. ok, definitely swgb is a rip off of aoe2, and jk2 of quake, but don't say lucasarts is unoriginal...noone can be 100% original all the time, in my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clefo Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Some of us can be, but can be real Nazis about it *points to self and his criticisim of LOTS, which for the record he still doesn't like* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by Clefo LOTS LOTR you mean? i was never under the impression that you didn't like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted October 26, 2002 Author Share Posted October 26, 2002 I can't agree with you there. Maybe some of their latest games have been kinda ripped off of other games, but definitely, Lucas Arts is probably THE best game making company in the world, in my opinion. Yeah, I know. I don't say its the best, but its really good. I just hope they are not gonna rip off all their future games...Galaxies looks awesome btw. (ne1 knows when it'll be avaible?) I just wanted to make some pressure... those bast**** in galactic discussion are sooooo obsessed by swgb... I have looked at some AoM screens and it looks great but... I think I like Wc3 better... Maybe I'll try it... C & C Generals What the heck is that????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 it's the latest command and conquer game...learn more here http://generals.ea.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 guys... im so dissappointed in you... OPEN YER FRICIN EYES... AoK2... is the best RTS game ever made... perfect balance... nothing dominates anything... SWGB... is a great game... ur tune would change if there were 10,000 players in GB... because there would be competition... but sadly there isnt... and u hafta live with it. AoM... what can I say... since i havent played the game i cant make any predictions... but i can state facts... Ensemble playes the hell out of their games to reach perfect balance... and great gameplay... and smoothness of its engines... if WC3 or C&C generals beats it... i will personally bow down to you... because i gaurnatee you it wont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Westwood has a great reputation when it comes to RTS. Hell they more or less really started the genre with Dune II. I think AoM and Generals both will be good games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA OPEN YER FRICIN EYES... AoK2... is the best RTS game ever made... perfect balance... nothing dominates anything... SWGB... is a great game... ur tune would change if there were 10,000 players in GB... because there would be competition... but sadly there isnt... and u hafta live with it. um...no...AoK really just felt like more of the same because I had played AoE and Rise of Rome religiously, then I got the X-Pac for AoK and played that till I was dead bored. Then I got online to look up info on GB and jumped onto the bandwagon (i.e.- I came here). When it came out I played it for maybe a month or two and exhausted it out. Beaten the game on all campaigns and played many skirmishes, built levels etc, etc. It was the same dadgum game! All they did was basically give it a unit mod. They didn't even change the tactics much at all! Just too much of the same thing OVER and OVER again. Eeking out the last life of a dated engine without REALLY pushing it and meeting the any of my expectations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.