EPT"Transparency, or why StarCraft owns Warcraft 3" - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:29 [X]Ken_D wrote: bw ego-boost +1 Lol most definitely! Damn Carmac's article is so sex  | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
|
Xeiji
Czech Republic12 Posts
That if SC players want to see top players all they have are VODs or some leaked replays, W3 players usually have all replays released after the tournament. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
On April 16 2008 00:50 Daflame wrote: Well I'm not going to go into an essay here guys, but I just wanted to state, Starcraft is harder than Warcraft III overall and it's pretty obvious. Just take a look at the differences between the Mineral Field and the Gold Mine. I think that's the best example I could give, but there are many other good examples as to why. As for the article, great read. Look at wood and vespene ;o The biggest War3 turn off for me was random items. It's added luck. Even how each unit has a damage range kinda irks me. The slower game pacing mixed in with "creeping" (which always bugged me, fighting stupid computer units instead of just the other guy) makes it a lot less exciting than starcraft. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5455 Posts
For people that have played both games, even a little bit, this is obvious. | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
Whereas, in WC3, I almost feel like I need to spend several hours studying and memorizing rules before I can play the game. You have units like the druid of the claw- normally a spell caster, turns into a tank/bear, casts one spell that gradually heals hp of one unit (which can only be cast in spell caster form), and has another spell that increases the damage output (by about 20% iirc) of all friendly units around it, which can at first only be cast from spellcaster form, but he gets an upgrade to cast it from bear form too. Confused much? I am! and that's just one unit! Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
to me it seems like all the people who disagree either have a retarded reason for it, or are in fact retarded. MAYBE ITS CUZ I LIKE SC LOLS | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. Just read the entire thread howerver i'd like to answer to this post. Where do you see any bullshit? He states clearly what are the pro and cons. Obviously those games can't be compared since they're both really different but to say that ToD has no clue about starcraft, well i could just say that "stfu you're an idiot" but i'll try to explain that there's no bullshits at all. First of all ToD played starcraft. Hell he could even beat elky back before his prime. I do agree that sc is more spec friendly, however to say that sc's micro > w3's micro is just bullshit. I bet 90% of you haven't played w3 competitively. Again those 2 games are just way too much different that it can't be comparable. Mid game w3 micro > sc micro. Simply because you can't send all your units and heroes to a single A-Move whereas in sc you can (just watch mondi vs a protoss : all he does are hotkeying units and dropping while a little group to attack another expansion; You can all do that with 3 singles a-move. Whereas in w3 you have to constantly watch to your units lives, to retreat them in order to not let them die, then microing your heroes to do some significantly damages while looking for his heroes spells. They're just way more micro in w3 than in sc since you have to constantly microing them for the entire battle and the entire game). Don't get me wrong, i hate warcraft3, i find it boring, non-spec friendly at all but i wanted to make it clear before someone comes with all his stupid arguments to prove that starcraft is clearly better when they obviously don't know what they're talking about. I'll repeat a countless time : theses 2 games are different. You MUST have played both of them at a rather high level to be able to compare them. Otherwise your arguments are worthless. Edit : Oh and yeah : i hate the sc2 engine. Even if i can understand what's happening, i really really hate how this engine looks like the w3's engine. We can't see shit when there are big battles happening, and i'm pretty sure if blizzard don't do something, they'll make this game looks like w3 and from a spectator point of view they'll clearly not understand what will happen. It's seriously worrying me a lot. They shouldn't have made this game in 3D. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On April 16 2008 07:27 RaiZ wrote: Oh and yeah : i hate the sc2 engine. Even if i can understand what's happening, i really really hate how this engine looks like the w3's engine. We can't see shit when there are big battles happening, and i'm pretty sure if blizzard don't do something, they'll make this game looks like w3 and from a spectator point of view they'll clearly not understand what will happen. It's seriously worrying me a lot. They shouldn't have made this game in 3D. I agree. I feel like when you look at the screenshots of SC2, you really can't tell what's going on behind the explosions, lasers, missles, and spells. It was the opposite in SC1, where if you look at any given screenshot of any given battle, you can tell what is happening. | ||
|
sunsplitter
United States4 Posts
On April 16 2008 04:09 Luddite wrote: Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. I find the opposite to be true actually. The damage types may be more complicated in WC3, but at least all the information you need is right there in the game in tooltips; I assume it just takes a while to learn, time that I never put in. Whereas with SC, you actually have to look up unit sizes and damage types on the SC compendium website, some of which aren't even that intuitive (muta has a medium sprite but small size, lurk a large sprite and medium size, sair and scout look to be the same size but aren't, etc.), and even then there are little details that easily escape notice - zealots and firebats and goliath missiles have armor doubled against them, firebat can get an extra hit against large targets, not to mention things that were changed in patches - sunken has extra armor, dragoon and cannon have identical looking attacks that do different damage types. I only know all this stuff after ten years of playing | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On April 15 2008 23:19 Waxangel wrote: I don't think crazy BW fans like us are really qualified to assume what it looks like to someone who's never played the game, it's practically instinct to us, and it's hard to try and think beyond that That's really true. None of us here can fathom what it's like to watch BW from the eyes of someone who hasn't. But my own friends, who are CS players (CEVO) and have never played either game for longer than a week, hate watching WC3 (they make fun of it like they make fun of WoW) and love watching SC (three of them tune in to Tasteless for every single one). Maybe it's just the graphics, but I don't think so. I've only ever played about 5 games of WC3 many years ago, so I have absolutely no idea what's going on when I watch it... it looks exactly like he explained it; heroes chasing shit around bushes in the center of the map. Lame. And watching some of the pros live (mostly Tod, though I'm sure it's the same across the board) is a disappointment to me too... they do about as much shit as I used to playing DoW (maybe the game is really super deep in ways I don't know, but I don't see it). Watching SC/CS pros live is on an entirely different level of excitement and professionalism (SC would be even better if not for the whole manner bullshit and lack of emotion, but o'well) | ||
|
InfeSteD
United States4658 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
as an sc player myself im sure my decision is biased towards sc so i really cant say much but cmon man you wc players gotta admit that creeping around then using town portals all the time can be boring to watch... | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On April 16 2008 04:09 Luddite wrote: This article articulates really well something that I've been thinking/worrying about for SC2. In SC, most of the unit abilities are fairly simple. A zergling runs in, kills something, runs away, dies. A tank sieges, shoots stuff. Even the spell casters aren't that complicated- a psi storm kills anything under it, irradiate damages almost anything it touches, etc. Even an ignorant spectator can understand, "ah, reach won that battle despite being outnumbered because the other guys units were all clumped up and got destroyed by psi storm." The great part is that very complicated strategies are formed out of such simple components. Whereas, in WC3, I almost feel like I need to spend several hours studying and memorizing rules before I can play the game. You have units like the druid of the claw- normally a spell caster, turns into a tank/bear, casts one spell that gradually heals hp of one unit (which can only be cast in spell caster form), and has another spell that increases the damage output (by about 20% iirc) of all friendly units around it, which can at first only be cast from spellcaster form, but he gets an upgrade to cast it from bear form too. Confused much? I am! and that's just one unit! Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. Excellent post on what SC2 should avoid. I hope Blizzard knows this or at least read that. | ||
GTR
51507 Posts
Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him). | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Then, after watching it I went back to some BW vods. OMG by eyes were like "thank you! thank you!! these are much better thanks!!". It became instantly clear why BW is so better to watch. It's just so much more simple and clean visually, then the game is much more flexible and exciting. There is just no comparison, it's too obvious. BW is 10 bazilion times better. Search youtube.com for some jon747 vods on wc3 then watch some jon747 vods on bw. There is no way in hell any human being on planet earth will disagree that bw is much better to watch. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On April 16 2008 09:45 GTR-2-Go wrote: Uh, why in War3 don't we see proxy buildings? Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him). I use to remember seeing proxy Ancients of War rush until it was completely removed as a viable strat. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 16 2008 09:45 GTR-2-Go wrote: Uh, why in War3 don't we see proxy buildings? Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him). You do. In fact you see proxy-shops in at least a quarter of matches by Korean Orc or NE. Other buildings are too expensive to afford to lose, so are only proxied if you are doing a tower rush. Also, Insomnia (who recently retired) played SC at a high level before. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7298 Posts
The units overlap and there are spells going on and you cant really tell whats dying. The creeping aspect is, was, and always will be super fucking gay. | ||
| ||
