Chefelf.com Night Life: StarCraft vs. WarCraft - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

StarCraft vs. WarCraft Which one would YOU play?

#1 User is offline   Dan_N_GameZ Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 322
  • Joined: 07-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Red Dwarf, AGS, programming in VB, Yahtzee etc.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 January 2007 - 04:38 PM

Now, as far as RTS game makers go, I love Blizzard. But I love them for two things. One is StarCraft, the other is Diablo.

But am I the only one who thinks that all WarCraft are average at best?

WarCraft 1 was innovative for it's time gameplay-wise, but the sides were identical, and there wasn't much of a story.
WarCraft 2, again, brought on a simplified interface (although C&C had an even simpler one two years earlier) but again, the sides were pretty much the same, and the story wasn't that much to to talk about...
WarCraft 3 was just a cheap rip-off of StarCraft, only RPG-ified and 3D-ified.

And it sadens me to see that Blizzard are milking WarCraft for all it's worth while StarCraft lies in shelves of game stores for 8 dolars or less.

What's your take?
"Once upon a time, musta been 'round October, few years back, in one o' dose TOP SECRET LAB-MOTORIES de gubbnint keep stashed away underneath Virginia, an EVIL PRINCE, occasion'ly employed as a part-time THEATRICAL CRITICIZER set to woikin' on a plot fo de systematic GENOCIDICAL REMOVE'LANCE of all unwanted highly-rhythmic individj'lls an' sissy-boys!" (Prologue, Thing-Fish)

Quoting other forumers in your signature seems to be the latest craze around here...

My Last.FM profile.
0

#2 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:01 AM

All of them. If only for the excellent writing and atmosphere... and maybe the cute included artwork. I won't include them here since they're a bit gory and copyright protected (read: I can't be arsed).

WarCraft I: Cute.

Diablo: Cute².

WarCraft II: Very nice, bad German voice-actors, though, and yeah, the sides were pretty much the same, apart from the looks and magic spells. Beyond the Dark Portal didn't change much there.

StarCraft: Ohhhh... definitely nice. You can play it all the time and it won't get boring or outdated. Yey! Got even better with Brood War.

Diablo II: I don't know how many hours I spent climbing up the ladder on battle.net, but I know that it's been far too many. Loved it, and it really got interesting again after Lord of Destruction and the patch to version 1.09. Sad thing that the graphics are so outdated, but meh... it's old, cut it some slack.

WarCraft III: Not just a rip-off, in my opinion. Brought many new ideas into the genre, I still can't decide whether it's better than StarCraft, though. I like them both too much. And then there's still the opposing force coming from the Westwood Studios...

Edit: Forgot to mention that really most of these games featured plain AWFUL German voice actors. Diablo II might be an exception, though. And the translation... ugh... Example: WarCraft III had those lovely dwarves, right? They like to scream "MORTAR KOMBAT!", oh how I laughed... and those German bastards translated it directly into "MÖRSER KAMPF!"... yeah, right, let's call Mortal Kombat "Sterblichen Kampf", too, why don't cha...

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 29 January 2007 - 05:05 AM

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#3 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 15 February 2007 - 11:01 PM

starcraft. easilly.

sweet sweet memories....

when all i cared about was starcraft, fallout 2, crystal caves (to clear the pallet), and i guess my girlfriend at the time
0

#4 User is offline   David-kyo Icon

  • Goatboy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,305
  • Joined: 18-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:None of your business.
  • Country:Hungary

Posted 16 February 2007 - 08:01 AM

QUOTE (barend @ Feb 16 2007, 05:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
when all i cared about was starcraft, fallout 2, crystal caves (to clear the pallet), and i guess my girlfriend at the time

Why do I have the suspicion that she might have not felt that it was so? wink.gif

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I also wanted to say that Diablo SUCKS BALLS. That is not because it's old: its suckyness is timeless.

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 16 February 2007 - 08:02 AM

0

#5 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 16 February 2007 - 08:12 AM

Surely you're only talking about Diablo I there, Dávid-san...?

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#6 User is offline   David-kyo Icon

  • Goatboy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,305
  • Joined: 18-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:None of your business.
  • Country:Hungary

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:05 AM

I'm talking about both, especially the 2nd one, they're friggin' tedious. No story, no character development whatsoever (I'm not talking about grinding for levels here), just go in, kill evil horde, get loot, go deeper, kill slightly more powerful evil horde, etc. That is the ultimate suxx experience for me. It's just not an RPG, even though Blizzard claims that it indeed is.
0

#7 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:13 AM

You never played it with 23 other people on Hell, eh? happy.gif That's where it's gettin' interesting.

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#8 User is offline   David-kyo Icon

  • Goatboy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,305
  • Joined: 18-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:None of your business.
  • Country:Hungary

Posted 16 February 2007 - 12:38 PM

Perhaps not, but I'm not willing to wade through an ocean of tedious horseshit for that. Not after finally getting around to throwing WoW out the window.

If you haven't yet noticed, I'm still in my FUCK BLIZZARD-period. sleep.gif
0

#9 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:38 PM

World of Warcraft is no RPG either.

auto stats, paid for skills, the agonizing descision of spending your talent points to make one set of skills only, 5% more efficient.

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllshit!!!!

blizzard and RPGs are too seperate worlds.

QUOTE (David-kyo @ Feb 16 2007, 08:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why do I have the suspicion that she might have not felt that it was so? wink.gif


if anything it was a competativeness over tetris that pulled us apart.
0

#10 User is offline   Blueskirt Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 264
  • Joined: 30-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A ten-foot by ten-foot room, guarding a pie
  • Interests:Guarding pies
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 19 February 2007 - 07:01 AM

I actually liked Warcraft 1 and 3. The first one was good for its time. Warcraft 2 like you said was just Warcraft 1, but with flying and naval units, and the graphics were too much Disney cartoony. I prefered the first Warcraft to Warcraft 2 graphically speaking. Warcraft 3 introduced a lot of new things and more tactical possibilities with all those units that did a little bit more than just attacking or throwing projectiles.

Starcraft introduced a storyline for once, an epic one, and it was told in a nice way, usually in most RTS, both campaigns' storylines are mutually exclusive, what happen in one campaign doesn't happen in the other, with Starcraft all 3 campaigns actually happened in the storyline. Plus, when I discovered Starcraft, every RTS were taking the AOE1&2 direction, with graphics and units looking more realistical and visually boring in my book. Everything was either green, brown or skin colored, and the only difference between units were which weapons they were carrying and if they were on a horse or not. When I played Starcraft, it was like a fresh rose compared to other games.

That being said, if I had to choose between Starcraft or Warcraft 3, I'd play none of them. After playing Warcraft 3 and more recent RTS, Starcraft is a pain to play because of its awful units pathfinding. And Warcraft 3, quite frankly, while it was a good RTS, it also marks the moment Blizzard sold out, but sold out big time. First with WoW, then with more and more derived products, card games, board games, table top RPGs, novels, manga... and this general anime/manga feel of Warcraft 3, with that orc samurai hero, panda monk, and night elves in bikini.

I think I reached a point where, even if Starcraft 2 is released, and even if it revolutions the Starcraft universe just like Warcraft 3 did, I wouldn't care anymore as it would probably just be a matter of time until they do to Starcraft what they did to Warcraft.
0

#11 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 19 February 2007 - 11:54 AM

I started playing wc2 in 1995??. Or 1994 i can't remember. or Maybe 1996. Whatever, the game ruled

Starcraft also ruled.

Sorry, more here.

The story line in wc1 and 2 are amazing. Simple and fun to follow. WC3 tried to make it all epic and destroyed it with stupid nonsense. When I'm not at work I'll type up a huge thing on it.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#12 User is offline   Cyzyk Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 09-March 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 21 February 2007 - 01:37 AM

I never played Starcraft. I'm still waiting for my local Gamestop to drop the price below $20. The game is like ten years old. I'm not paying $20 for that.

As for the Warcrafts... never liked them. I felt Warlords: Battlecry II did Warcraft 3 far better than Blizzard did. The games always felt flat, without any real strategy to them.

My favorite RTS ever is Empire Earth 1. That game let you do whatever you wanted, and it was always fun. Except how the computer played on god mode. No real resource collection, upgrades when it wanted them, and instant buildings...
Tolerance is another word for Apathy
0

#13 User is offline   Blueskirt Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 264
  • Joined: 30-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A ten-foot by ten-foot room, guarding a pie
  • Interests:Guarding pies
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 21 February 2007 - 06:04 AM

Strategy in Warcraft 3 mostly depends whether or not you played it on the Difficult difficulty level. On Normal you can pass through the entire game with just a big army of the toughest unit available, but if you play on Difficult, I can garantee you will need to vary the composition of your army, have multiple squads, select the right spell to learn at the right moment, use your spells and artifact efficiently, magic users and units' special abilities, masterize the art of sieges and you will definitivly spend a lot of days dreaming at work and sleepless nights wondering how to pass some missions that require you to completly change a strategy you perfectionned in the last missions.
0

#14 User is offline   David-kyo Icon

  • Goatboy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,305
  • Joined: 18-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:None of your business.
  • Country:Hungary

Posted 21 February 2007 - 06:37 AM

Then I'll just stick by the Normal setting, thank you.
0

Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size