|
Dawn of War 2 (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
the warcraft 3 campaign was ok, mostly only due to the cool cut scenes. but the overall plot didn't interest me for a second.
never played the SC campaign. i only played multiplayer. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| The SC campaign was fantastic for it's time. Of course nowadays it feels a bit lame because the AI doesn't actually do anything, they just randomly suicide units into your defense one by one until you decide to mass up a large force and wipe the map clean. The story itself is easily one of the best I've seen in any video game. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the warcraft 3 campaign was ok, mostly only due to the cool cut scenes. but the overall plot didn't interest me for a second.
never played the SC campaign. i only played multiplayer. |
The WC3 plot wasn't anything new or special. I mean, it was well done, but you didn't miss anything. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| I really wish they'd stuck with the awesome warcraft 2 style scrolling text briefings and kept the uber-cheesy 3d in game cutscenes to a minimum. |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
I really wish they'd stuck with the awesome warcraft 2 style scrolling text briefings and kept the uber-cheesy 3d in game cutscenes to a minimum. |
Warcraft 2 had an awesome atmosphere. Everything from the music... to the look of things. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Darkarbiter
Warcraft 2 had an awesome atmosphere. Everything from the music... to the look of things. |
Not only is Warcraft 2 my favorite RTS of all time, but its waaaaaaaay more fun than Warcraft 3 if you ask me. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
Not only is Warcraft 2 my favorite RTS of all time, but its waaaaaaaay more fun than Warcraft 3 if you ask me. |
the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler :) |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler :) |
Theres tons of other things that are better! |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by Darkarbiter
Theres tons of other things that are better! |
Agreed. Warcraft 3 would've had great potential if only they hadn't completely changed the presentation style and turned it into kiddy cartoons with magic and unicorns. Warcraft 2 had such a better feel overall. The briefings, the music, the concepts, the art. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler :) |
The heroes were indeed awesome, a very cool aspect that was a very welcome addition to the Warcraft universe.
That being said, there were a couple things that hindered WC3's fun.
For one, upkeep. In principle, it makes sense, you need to continuously spend money to maintain your army and base, etc. But, with upkeep, if you had too big of an army, building an even bigger army was simply impossible. You could only have a certain amount of units before getting MORE units was a straight up bad idea because you would accumulate resources so slow that rebuilding an army if your previous one got killed/destroyed would be impossible. (poorly written sentence but you know what I mean)
In Warcraft 2, it was standard for someone to have multiple bases and multiple gold mines. In Warcraft 3, I wish you good luck with that, it was near impossible to have even just TWO bases, because you couldn't build an army big enough to defend both, and town halls were so god damn expensive that expanding your army (unless your first gold mine became depleted) was pointless unless you absolutely had to.
Basically, WC3 games were quick and fast. Thats fine, but I liked the longer, drawn out battles of WC2 better. Sure, you could die a quick death in WC2 as well if someone rushes you properly, but if you survive it, its entirely possible a long game will ensue. Very little did this happen in WC3.
Now, I am NO Warcraft elitist. I can kick some serious ass in 2, but I wasn't anywhere near the best at 3. Maybe that's part of the reason why I share the opinion that I do, but I played a lot of 3, and yet, I could never have the same amount of fun that I had with 2. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
The heroes were indeed awesome, a very cool aspect that was a very welcome addition to the Warcraft universe.
That being said, there were a couple things that hindered WC3's fun.
For one, upkeep. In principle, it makes sense, you need to continuously spend money to maintain your army and base, etc. But, with upkeep, if you had too big of an army, building an even bigger army was simply impossible. You could only have a certain amount of units before getting MORE units was a straight up bad idea because you would accumulate resources so slow that rebuilding an army if your previous one got killed/destroyed would be impossible. (poorly written sentence but you know what I mean)
In Warcraft 2, it was standard for someone to have multiple bases and multiple gold mines. In Warcraft 3, I wish you good luck with that, it was near impossible to have even just TWO bases, because you couldn't build an army big enough to defend both, and town halls were so god damn expensive that expanding your army (unless your first gold mine became depleted) was pointless unless you absolutely had to.
Basically, WC3 games were quick and fast. Thats fine, but I liked the longer, drawn out battles of WC2 better. Sure, you could die a quick death in WC2 as well if someone rushes you properly, but if you survive it, its entirely possible a long game will ensue. Very little did this happen in WC3.
Now, I am NO Warcraft elitist. I can kick some serious ass in 2, but I wasn't anywhere near the best at 3. Maybe that's part of the reason why I share the opinion that I do, but I played a lot of 3, and yet, I could never have the same amount of fun that I had with 2. |
All good points, I hardly ever played WC2 multiplayer though which is why I never missed some of these things. Upkeep was a great way of balancing the game for multiplay action. Unfortunate, but necessary to avoid the "slippery slope" mechanic. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
All good points, I hardly ever played WC2 multiplayer though which is why I never missed some of these things. Upkeep was a great way of balancing the game for multiplay action. Unfortunate, but necessary to avoid the "slippery slope" mechanic. |
I'll admit that the upkeep feature was a cool little twist. If WC3 was just an addition of heroes and not much else, it would just be WC2 with different graphics. Sequels have to evolve past their predecessor, and Blizzard was only adding a little new challenge to the mix. I only feel that it decreased the amount of workable strategies as a result. Again, I'm not very good, I'll bet there are plenty of ways to win for each race that I've never even thought about, so this little 'fact' I'm throwing around may as well be considered an opinion instead. .
I had a blast with 3, but 2 is my preferred out of each. :cool: |
|
|
|
|
