EPTMORE TERRAN NEWS!! - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Duffybeer
China183 Posts
| ||
|
aW]Nevermind
Venezuela73 Posts
On July 22 2007 17:32 garmule2 wrote: Alot of these discussions are similar, and go in a cycle. They won't get put to rest until beta, where we can actually see what the game is like. However, I do have to say that I am disappointed that so many of the units previewed so far have similar concepts to other games, and those other games were very, very bad. In contrast to that, I trust Blizzard will take tired and cliche concepts and apply them in ways that will revitalize the RTS industry in the same way that StarCraft did. On the flip side once more, WarCraft III was an absolute bomb. I don't care how popular it was; it was simply not classified in the right genre. WarCraft III is not at all in the same category as StarCraft. WarCraft III is in the same category as the Sims: games for people who aren't that into games. And in contrast yet another time, I hope Blizzard learned from their WarCraft III mistakes. From the comments they make, it seems like they have. I'm liking the potential for tactical interplay between T and P so far. I think it'll be good. im still laughing about how focking dumb you are, u think ur good old' sc bw pro right ? go back to ur pathetic 500 person ICCUP server while wc3 gets bigger and bigger in china, and the rest of the world. Battle.net actually works with wc3 with people playing the damn game (90.000 people online on an avg day on the US.East server, and like twice of that on europe/asia) instead of that horrible ICCUP server | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
SC has around 90-100 000 online during korean day time, and please don't compare the War3 AMM system to ICCUP when 1) ICCUP is a private server and the War3 AMM is the official one 2) War3 has no regular melee system, so the normal way to play is to play AMM (at least I think it is), unlike in BW where melee is the standard. I don't agree that War3 was a bomb tho, but your post is retarded. | ||
|
aW]Nevermind
Venezuela73 Posts
On July 23 2007 00:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: Nevermind, fuck off. No, War3 does not have 180 000 players on europe, war3 user stats are for ALL servers, as are the SC ones. SC has around 90-100 000 online during korean day time, and please don't compare the War3 AMM system to ICCUP when 1) ICCUP is a private server and the War3 AMM is the official one 2) War3 has no regular melee system, so the normal way to play is to play AMM (at least I think it is), unlike in BW where melee is the standard. I don't agree that War3 was a bomb tho, but your post is retarded. it's so funny when you talk about something and you don't know anything about it, right? please learn to dominate the subject your talking about or you will look like a retard. Yes sc bw is arguably a better game than wc3, but also wc3 is a hell of a game and it's a lot LOT LOT more popular than SC @ worldwide with the excepcion of korea but talking to biased old school noobs is not worth my time. Looking to see if a guy is hopelessly biased for sc is simple: 1) He thinks the units are completely original 2) He thinks the game is flawless despite half the units/spells never being used at any level of play 3) A terrible user interface makes the game awesome 4) War3 is a failure despite being more popular in every country that isn't korea 5) Said failure is due to war3 not being starcraft on azeroth | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
 | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On July 23 2007 05:44 aW]Nevermind wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 23 2007 00:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: Nevermind, fuck off. No, War3 does not have 180 000 players on europe, war3 user stats are for ALL servers, as are the SC ones. SC has around 90-100 000 online during korean day time, and please don't compare the War3 AMM system to ICCUP when 1) ICCUP is a private server and the War3 AMM is the official one 2) War3 has no regular melee system, so the normal way to play is to play AMM (at least I think it is), unlike in BW where melee is the standard. I don't agree that War3 was a bomb tho, but your post is retarded. it's so funny when you talk about something and you don't know anything about it, right? please learn to dominate the subject your talking about or you will look like a retard. Yes sc bw is arguably a better game than wc3, but also wc3 is a hell of a game and it's a lot LOT LOT more popular than SC @ worldwide with the excepcion of korea but talking to biased old school noobs is not worth my time. Looking to see if a guy is hopelessly biased for sc is simple: 1) He thinks the units are completely original 2) He thinks the game is flawless despite half the units/spells never being used at any level of play 3) A terrible user interface makes the game awesome 4) War3 is a failure despite being more popular in every country that isn't korea 5) Said failure is due to war3 not being starcraft on azeroth Do you know how to argue without insulting people? | ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
On July 23 2007 05:44 aW]Nevermind wrote: it's so funny when you talk about something and you don't know anything about it, right? please learn to dominate the subject your talking about or you will look like a retard. Yes sc bw is arguably a better game than wc3, but also wc3 is a hell of a game and it's a lot LOT LOT more popular than SC @ worldwide with the excepcion of korea but talking to biased old school noobs is not worth my time. Starcraft - 1998 Warcraft3 - 2002 We're a bit rusty but still in great shape for our age. See you in 4 years...or not. | ||
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
Looking to see if a guy is hopelessly biased for sc is simple: Wow. People are biased for SC On a Starcraft site? Dedicated to professional Starcraft play? Who would have guessed :S | ||
|
garmule2
United States376 Posts
| ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On July 23 2007 05:44 aW]Nevermind wrote: it's so funny when you talk about something and you don't know anything about it, right? please learn to dominate the subject your talking about or you will look like a retard. Yes sc bw is arguably a better game than wc3, but also wc3 is a hell of a game and it's a lot LOT LOT more popular than SC @ worldwide with the excepcion of korea but talking to biased old school noobs is not worth my time. Looking to see if a guy is hopelessly biased for sc is simple: 1) He thinks the units are completely original 2) He thinks the game is flawless despite half the units/spells never being used at any level of play 3) A terrible user interface makes the game awesome 4) War3 is a failure despite being more popular in every country that isn't korea 5) Said failure is due to war3 not being starcraft on azeroth He's just trying to defend his game, let's get off the which game is better, we all know the real answer (neither). | ||
|
aW]Nevermind
Venezuela73 Posts
On July 23 2007 08:28 garmule2 wrote: Again, WarCraft III's popularity is not an indicator of its genre. It is a game for casual players who don't know much about other games. Yes, there are competitive players in WarCraft III. I'm not saying there aren't. It's just that, compared to the best RTS's, WarCraft III is simply... less focused. Upkeep, creeping, item stores, heroes, imbalanced races/heroes/strategies, not to mention the slow pace of combat and random damage... I always felt like luck was a far larger determinant of my games in WarCraft III. There's no luck in StarCraft. Units don't do random damage, battles are quick and decisive, and there's no (or very little) imbalance to be found. Everything in StarCraft comes from each player's decisions and nowhere else. In WarCraft III, it isn't that way. That's all I'm saying. thats another form of saying something but the other post was just an insult to us wc3 players, it's a very hard game to master and it's truly more of a Real time strategy game, while sc the faster wins. (not something bad tho), anyways i play both games and i enjoy both quite a lot. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On July 23 2007 05:44 aW]Nevermind wrote: it's so funny when you talk about something and you don't know anything about it, right? please learn to dominate the subject your talking about or you will look like a retard. Yes sc bw is arguably a better game than wc3, but also wc3 is a hell of a game and it's a lot LOT LOT more popular than SC @ worldwide with the excepcion of korea but talking to biased old school noobs is not worth my time. A$&*(%&$(*^% I said "I DON'T THINK WAR 3 IS A BAD GAME". Yes, outside Korea War3 is more popular - where did I say otherwise? I just said that during Korean day time there's up to 100 000 people online on battle.net playing starcraft. Looking to see if a guy is hopelessly biased for sc is simple: 1) He thinks the units are completely original 2) He thinks the game is flawless despite half the units/spells never being used at any level of play 3) A terrible user interface makes the game awesome 4) War3 is a failure despite being more popular in every country that isn't korea 5) Said failure is due to war3 not being starcraft on azeroth 1) I don't think the units are completely original, in fact a lot of them are blatant ripoffs. 2) Half? Stop being retarded. 3) I think the unit interface is fine and anything else would make STARCRAFT worse at this point in time, that's not to say that SC2s interface has to be a copy of it. 4) War3 is not a failure I just don't like the game. 5) Lol. On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: thats another form of saying something but the other post was just an insult to us wc3 players, it's a very hard game to master and it's truly more of a Real time strategy game, while sc the faster wins. (not something bad tho), anyways i play both games and i enjoy both quite a lot. Dude, no. Just no. Savior, the most dominant fucking player of the past 2 years, has like 200 apm -_- I'm pretty sure from what I remember of War3 replays that there's a ton of war3 players with that kind of apm. Iloveoov - also around 200 apm, one of the most dominant of all time. Nal_rA used to be the same IIRC. Second, how can you call a game that's not even a pure RTS, more of a real time strategy game? War3 is a RTS/RPG hybrid, and you saying it's more an RTS is just.. it makes no sense. This is not saying it's a bad game just because it's not a pure RTS, it's an excellent RTS/RPG hybrid -.- | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: thats another form of saying something but the other post was just an insult to us wc3 players, it's a very hard game to master and it's truly more of a Real time strategy game, while sc the faster wins. (not something bad tho), anyways i play both games and i enjoy both quite a lot. There's more thought involved in sc strategies than you might think. It's not just oh lets build some marines and tanks and shoot the zerg base up when I massed enough. There's very specific tactics and strategies involved. I can't remember the last time I've seen someone get flanked, use advantage of higher ground etc in wc3. WC3 is much more engage and out micro the other player, you can hardly call it a strategy game because there is hardly any room for varying strategies. Oh and being more popular has a lot to do with when it came out, and being much more noob friendly. Don't get me wrong I still think it's a good game for competition because of the heavy micro, I just prefer my games where you can actually think up something interesting and execute that idea instead of just micro micro micro. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19141 Posts
On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: thats another form of saying something but the other post was just an insult to us wc3 players, it's a very hard game to master and it's truly more of a Real time strategy game, while sc the faster wins. (not something bad tho), anyways i play both games and i enjoy both quite a lot. I so disgree with you, WC3 is so piss easy to master it's sad. And SC doesn't mean the faster wins, nada has like twice saviors APM and loses the last couple of games, sup. ;/ Any game that means losing 1 grunt in a mirror mu meaning you lose or w/e is a shit game. It's so slow its pretty easy to master and it doesn't even have a macro aspect that you can actually quality as such :/. Multitasking and unit control in SC is just in another league entirely compared to warcraft. | ||
|
aW]Nevermind
Venezuela73 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: [QUOTE] Any game that means losing 1 grunt in a mirror mu meaning you lose or w/e is a shit game. It's so slow its pretty easy to master and it doesn't even have a macro aspect that you can actually quality as such :/. Multitasking and unit control in SC is just in another league entirely compared to warcraft.[/QUOTE] Wc3 is really hard to master because 1 focking small mistake like losing a grunt on mirror makes you lose, seems like u just lost too much and gave up. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 23 2007 10:42 Nyovne wrote: [QUOTE]On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: [QUOTE] Any game that means losing 1 grunt in a mirror mu meaning you lose or w/e is a shit game. It's so slow its pretty easy to master and it doesn't even have a macro aspect that you can actually quality as such :/. Multitasking and unit control in SC is just in another league entirely compared to warcraft.[/QUOTE] Wc3 is really hard to master because 1 focking small mistake like losing a grunt on mirror makes you lose, seems like u just lost too much and gave up.[/QUOTE] I used to be really hardcore into wc3 before switching to SC. This was probably my biggest complaint with the game. (well, actually random item drops were, but this is a close second). Most games tended to follow the landslide pattern. Small losses early on soon proved insurmountable when those extra exp points your opponent got were now overpowering you. It seems there is much less room for comebacks than in SC. An early disadvantage turned into a huge disadvantage late game. That all being said, I haven't played wc3 since 1.16, but at the time was within top 50 on east solo, so I'd like to think I'm not entirely ignorant on the subject. | ||
|
lovetramy
Vietnam120 Posts
enuff said :D | ||
|
Aiurtime
United States61 Posts
Bill roper>Justin Browder Blizzard> EA and Westood nuff said | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19141 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 23 2007 10:42 Nyovne wrote: [QUOTE]On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: [QUOTE] Any game that means losing 1 grunt in a mirror mu meaning you lose or w/e is a shit game. It's so slow its pretty easy to master and it doesn't even have a macro aspect that you can actually quality as such :/. Multitasking and unit control in SC is just in another league entirely compared to warcraft.[/QUOTE] Wc3 is really hard to master because 1 focking small mistake like losing a grunt on mirror makes you lose, seems like u just lost too much and gave up.[/QUOTE] Wow @ you just trying to troll. It's a bit sad and how you draw your major conclusions about people and it's not a small mistake to lose a unit cause they have a million hitpoints and the gamepace is so slow even my grandmother who's half blind can follow it (this is not a retarded example but an actual fact). I suggest you manner up and get your stuff straight. Any game where 1 setback results in a unrecoverable situation makes for very very poor play imho. Games where people can recover due to skill and well thought out strategical choices are the points and games where you have to keep playing at your best from start to finish to win. Not score a single victory and just milk it from there. Ah well to each his own. If you even place WC3 in the same league as SC to master or even compare it as both pure RPG's it's kinda useless to argue with it. Kudos to FA though for trying -.- And anyway, this is a SC2 discussion forum, not a CnC3 or WC3 or whatever I wanna cry about now forum. Drop it and troll someplace else, much obliged. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
I can't comment on Bill Roper vs Justin Browder because I don't know either of them And i've never played CnC3, although multiplayer SC is way more fun than RA/RA2 | ||
| ||
