Starcraft compared to Warcraft 3?

[puggsoy]

I was wondering, how does Starcraft (not Starcraft 2) compare to Warcraft 3? I've only played the trial version of Starcraft, which unfortunately didn't allow me to experience skirmishes. I also didn't have a chance to try out the Zerg or Protoss races.

In any case I'll most likely get it sooner or later, but I was just wondering how it compares to Warcraft 3. From my knowledge it was made before WC3, but the World Editor was apparently based off Starcraft's, so it seems they have some similarities. What are the biggest differences, in terms of gameplay, replayability, and editor possibilities?

 

[Adiktuz]

The editor of SC and Wc3 has A LOT of differences... You cannot do much things on the editor of SC...

As for the gameplay, its much like SC2 and wc3 (or any RTS)... but ofc its much closer to SC2 than to any other RTS games I played... I would suggest viewing gameplay videos or skirmish videos on youtube so that you could get more idea...

I cannot comment for replayability as I did not play the campaign up to the end...

 

[puggsoy]

Good idea about the videos, might give that a go.

By the way, about replayability, I was actually talking more about skirmishes than the campaign. I expect that you'd be able to play the campaign maybe twice before it gets boring, but what I actually meant was how quickly do the races get boring?

Oh, by the way, I forgot to ask... how different are the races? In Warcraft 3 they differ quite a lot, in Warcraft 2 they're pretty much identical... how about Starcraft?

 

[GhostThruster]

Lol, StarCraft is known to be one of the first RTS games to successfully make the races masterfully unique yet still highly balanced. So yep, the races are as different as it gets.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

I cannot comment for replayability as I did not play the campaign up to the end...

When finished you can play all missions, or any mission that you like for that matter. You could play them on hard for an achievement and it will also display your time spend in the mission when you complete it. You can also play the missions you missed by making a choice, i actually liked that you don't have to do the campaign all over only to play those.

 

[Tleno]

Well, the progress comparing SC to WC3 is pretty much the same as comparing WC3 to SC2.

 

[Rui]

StarCraft has the property of having those three unique races, it is still somewhat fun to play, I replayed the first Protoss campaign a month ago or so, and I feel like playing the one of Brood War. The campaigns of the original game are very very easy though, and the strategy is almost always to starve your enemy out of resources whilst doing an effort to take out heavily towered bases, so they tend to get boring. Brood War is a little more challenging due to the higher difficulty and the fact that resources for your enemies are unlimited from what I can tell.It has a few advantages compared to StarCraft II. PurplePoot argues with me that it's my micro or macro or whatnot, but from my experience, StarCraft 1 is, micro-wise, a lot more like WarCraft III: first, it has a reduced number of units compared to StarCraft II, and second, the ooold pathing system makes units sometimes wander around in circles and take longer to lock on the pointed target. Meaning, you can actually better preserve your units.In StarCraft 1, both in the campaign and skirmishes, I could actually micro my Zealots, while in SC2, it's ridiculous to bother, because 50 resistance (shields, which don't have a damage discount / armor unless upgraded, from 60 on SC1) in a game where armies are always composed by 30 units or so is just a waste of time or even impossible in most cases. Now, I was playing (in SC1, both campaign and skirmish) with a speed of one point below the maximum, but this is certainly not what dictates the large difference.The shields concept was interesting, but it would have fit WarCraft III way more, because in StarCraft, especially SC2, it doesn't do much of a difference because people don't care about them; units are supposed to just charge into battle and die, in opposition to WarCraft III where micro plays a determinant role -- all the items you're provided at each race's specific shop, as well as the game's mechanics themselves, are centered around that. And you'd best realize this quickly if you're looking into playing the game.
As for ScumEdit, it's a step back from the World Editor, just as World Editor is a step back from the Galaxy Editor.

 

[puggsoy]

Wow, thanks for that Rui, I've got a better idea of SC now. I think one of the biggest things for me will be no Hero system. I mean, I've played Warcraft 2, but the thing with that was that the races were basically identical, and you only had 2. So playing with 3 very different races, and with no real heroes and basically making armies to charge into a base will be pretty interesting.
I think the coolest thing will be experimenting with the different races and comparing tactics, for example I read that as the Zerg, you have a town-hall-like building (Hatchery) which produces Larvae which evolve into units and buildings, whereas the Terran race is basically like Humans or Orcs in Warcraft.

 

[Rui]

In StarCraft 1 you do have heroes, there's inclusively a mission in the Protoss campaign where you're controlling Tassadar, Zeratul and Fenix and you have to use those heroes because their combined strength is the only thing that manages to help you pull through the Conclave's defenses.

Comparisons between WarCraft III's races and SC's are silly because, while they do share some similarities, each race has a combination of features which makes them unique from both other SC races and other WC3 races. Terran can lift up their buildings and, in SC2, even lower their Supply Depots and salvage their Bunkers, that's nothing like any race of WC3.

 

[puggsoy]

In StarCraft 1 you do have heroes, there's inclusively a mission in the Protoss campaign where you're controlling Tassadar, Zeratul and Fenix and you have to use those heroes because their combined strength is the only thing that manages to help you pull through the Conclave's defenses.

Oh? Well, what I actually said was that SC has no Hero system. I mean, I can imagine that there are "heroes" in the Starcraft campaign (like in Warcraft 2 you had characters such as Cho'gall was just an enhanced Ogre Mage), but what I meant was an advanced hero system like in Warcraft 3 were you have heroes even in melee maps.

 

[Tleno]

Well, Starcraft 1 has no RPG elements like Warcraft 3, and SC doesn't have such a powerfu leditor to make a custom RPG system...

 

[puggsoy]

Yeah, that's a bit of a downside (the editor). Still, I guess there are still some things you can't do with the WE, for example if you can edit the techtrees then it'd be interesting to make your own Zerg mutations.

 

[JackRCDF]

Actually there are a heap if RPGs made for SC1. I suggest you check out the staredit.net map database or nibbits for, say, spellsword RPG. The original editor sucked a bit but people made editors like scmdraft which are much more advanced. Of course, without modding you are still limited in what you can do with the editors but it's amazing some of the stuff people have managed to do.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

The first time I ever played RPGlike map on RTS was in the 99' or so the mission with Duran where you have to kill Stukov. With the Installation terrain, the traps coming from the ground it was very interesting, for an old game this was like the best ever made map, if say were taken away from the missions and used as a map.