[phatosealpha]

Ah, homeworld's complexity was it's strength.  Things like kami-salvaging, triwalling, bouncing battle balls, that's part of what made it great.

The other part of the attraction for me was that your fleet strenght carried over.  Gave a reason to excel, vs. typical episodic RTS's where as long as you win it doesn't matter if you crush them or just eke by.

[SKYNET-011]

Pandemic is still working on Battlezone 2...

Well, 2 members of pandemic.

[Flaser]

I also liked Homeworld 2 - thoug I'm also a fan of PDS since it built on its good qualities.

Though I tend to spend quite a time on the sensors managger.

What I like in HW2 - though it seemed somewhat dumbed/simpler than 1 was the new tactics.

Band Looping translates to rush in most games - here a fleet acted like one, with each unit trying to serve a role suited to its capabilities.

....and I'm glad they toned down the frigates - they are support units and should be used as such, not the freakin cavalry (which is exactly what corvettes are).

[Jal-18]

Homeworld really does beat StarCraft.  There only departments where it fails is lack of distinct playable races and prominenant comedic unit speech.

The WH40K game is Dawn of War, and if I had more interest in the Blizzard-type of RTS, I'd definately prefer it over SC.

[NGTM-1R]

Cataclysm beats Starcraft. (It had comedic unit speech, actually. I really got to like the destroyer guys.)

HW1...iffy at best. They don't really compare so well.

HW2...may it rot in the deepest depths of hell for a single-player campaign that punishes you for doing well. I managed to keep my fleet fairly intact, and what happens at Thaddis Sabbah? I have two Battlecruisers to face the Vaygr's TWENTY. No, I'm not kidding, that's what happened. I literally screamed at the game for five minutes, then snapped the disc in half and threw it out.

[Liberator]

tell me about it, it's ridiculous.  Yeah, I can understand dynamically increasing the enemies strength so that the player is challenged, but that's overboard.  The enemy should never outclass you to the point where you have no chance of victory.

[Swamp_Thing]

Before i realized the game was multiplying my units for the enemy´s count, i thought cheats was the way to go, in that mission where you have to prevent the gate from destruction. So, i redid the previous mission, and added myself some 6 battleships, and full fleet of everything else. Now you can imagine what i saw when i started the next mission. The screen was all RED!!!

[Liberator]

Rumor has it if you use Dreadnaughts to reinforce the enemy doesn't multiply.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Because Blizzard only has old games. All their new ones aren't anywhere near as ground breaking.

Practically all of Blizzard's legacy is built on Starcraft.

You haven't played WC3 or WoW, have you?

[AqueousShadow]

Originally posted by Knight Templar


You haven't played WC3 or WoW, have you?

Must reiterate the question.

StarCraft was good, but it died out after awhile because of its diminished capabilities. WarCraft 3 built upon StarCraft in A LOT of ways and made the experience more enjoyable, albeit the gameplay and focus was a lot different (micromanagement vs. macromanagement). When I saw the news on the next patch, I knew Blizzard was trying to "upgrade" SC with the more accessible things that WC3 has (things like mini-map pinging). Just makes it more enjoyable.

Of course, IMHO, WC3 still beats StarCraft out because of its capabilities. Especially the custom maps. WC3 is almost entirely customizable, whereas StarCraft is a bit more limited. Dota....drool....

[Ransom]

I hate Blizzard because of WC3 and WoW. I cannot stand them. WoW is just as bad as nearly every other fantasy MMORPG, with its tiresome gameplay and awful graphics, and WC3 is just... bad. Starcraft beat the hell out of it. I don't know what it is, but I enjoy playing Starcraft, yet I can't play WC3 for five minutes without, well, not playing it anymore.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn
...awful graphics...

So they take a bit of artistic liscense instead of making it teh ubar reelistic!! and forcing you to buy the latest radeon 12000++ to get anything higher than 5 fps and it all the sudden has "awful graphics"?

You're one of those people who continued to whine about Zelda: Wind Waker even after the anti-artsy train left the buidling, aren't you?

EDIT: If I could spell, I'd be dangerous.

[Liberator]

I actually prefer toonish proportions and design in my games.  Slightly oversized bits, nothing SD or chibi you understand, but a bit of silliness never hurts, especially with the deadly seriousness most of the games these days seem to have in what passes for stories.

[Fergus]

I personally feel Blizzard kicked off with Warcraft 2, but I don't see what you seem to have against Warcraft 3, how is it bad?  Personally I have always prefered my Total Wars, yet Warcraft 3 was ground breaking...take those "Hero" characters, yes SC did include them but I usually just left them at the start (nasty tendancy of dieing).  And how can a game that has a whole class go on "strike" be bad?  (Remebers the sight of all the gnomes)

[Knight Templar]

That and the Warcraft storyline absolutely kicks ass if you read into it a bit. Not that Starcraft's doesn't either, but it's hardly been developed as much.

[Ransom]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
So they take a bit of artistic liscense instead of making it teh ubar reelistic!! and forcing you to buy the latest radeon 12000++ to get anything higher than 5 fps and it all the sudden has "awful graphics"?

You're one of those people who continued to whine about Zelda: Wind Waker even after the anti-artsy train left the buidling, aren't you?

It's not the style that I hate, it's that the graphics are generally low res, not all that much better than your average MMORPG. And Wind Waker's style was the one thing I honestly liked about the game. If they had made the graphics more like Wind Waker, that is to say, stylistic while actually looking good, that would be fine.

As for the storyline, I agree, it's great. However WC3 appeared to have been jammed full with as many cliches as Blizzard could get their hands on, effectively ruining it for me. Not that the other games weren't full of them as well, but WC3 had even more than usual.

And the heroes are the reason I hate the gameplay. High level heroes unbalance the gameplay to the point of ridiculousness.

[DaBrain]

Well, I do like the StarCraft story.

So the solo mode is very good in my eyes.
And do not forget the editor which is VERY powerful (especially all that variants of it).

There is an RPG map called "Winter Glance" or something.
It's just great, you can play it for hours.



I've just started to play SC again. A rather stupid idea .
It's so much fun that I forget all my duties when I play.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn
And the heroes are the reason I hate the gameplay. High level heroes unbalance the gameplay to the point of ridiculousness.

Hmm, no they don't. That's not an argument but it's my opinion, and since you tell us why you don't like WC3 based on personal tates, it's as good.
I've never seen a hero in WC3 single handedly win a real battle, they help, for sure, but if they didn't, well, they would be useless from the root. They achieve their purpose, so they're cool.
And I wanna add that I love frozen throne, coz it adds so many critters, so many new species, hell, even unexpected whole factions ( like those weird shadowy dudes in the old orc realm ), it makes the universe so rich, it's just cool.

[Ransom]

In multiplayer, often the one who kills the most creeps at the start has an unfair advantage, because their hero is at a much higher level. They should make a difference, yes, but not that much. Oh well. I dunno. For some reason or another, I just can't enjoy playing it. I guess there's not much point arguing when I don't even know exactly why I hate it so much.