Warcraft vs Starcraft RTS

[Deleted member 219079]

Which one you prefer?

 

[Adiktuz]

Depends on my mood... If I want to play which needs me to put more precise control into each unit, I'll play wc3... but if I just want to go mass production and storm my enemies, I play SC...

 

[saphiree]

I guess SC2 is more APM intensive too

 

[pOke]

WC3 forever...imo SC2 everyone just focuses on massing and then sending, in wc3 there is more mirco involved which I like.

 

[saphiree]

WC3 forever...imo SC2 everyone just focuses on massing and then sending, in wc3 there is more mirco involved which I like.

SC2 has a lot of micro as well, but I agree there is more in WC3, mainly because of heroes

 

[Deleted member 219079]

My opinion: Ofc not wc3 over sc2, sc2 newer, engine better, physics, graphics, sounds etc.

But back in the days, wc3 was awesome And that feel will never be forgotten. Sc 2 is not for casual gamers, you need too much work to succeed in it. Damn, boring lol. In wc3 my team was most of the time as bad as me, or the level was so bad it was lots of fun. In sc2 nearly everyone acts like nerd, sweaty nerd, that thinks he's the boss. I don't like that, that's why sc2 made me stop playing rts frequently.

So why do I prefer sc2 over wc3? Because simply wc3 is as dead as possible. And there's bots. Bots, I hate them. 1% of people are able to host their games by themselves.I think blizzard should make wc3 free-to-play. That'd be cool!

You guys seem to have different approach to the topic, talking about gameplay. For me, the feel that you're not surrounded by nerds is important. In wc3, no one felt like it, there wasn't exact builds (at least for me and many others ).

Please do note I'm not calling you nerd if you play sc2, it just feels like it.

 

[DESTROYER123]

World editor beats starcraft.

 

[Adiktuz]

I think the Editors are out of the question as the title was about the RTS part only...

 

[Rui]

Warcraft. It is funnier and less frustrating than StarCraft. I haven't played SC2 in some time, but, like I have said before, in Warcraft you don't need to expand everywhere in order to be useful to your team. There's actual individual unit micro involved, it's not insanely about placement, towers and structures are actually durable and, of course, it's fun to go around leveling a hero. In SC2 when you have things like your Void Rays or Phoenixes accidentally met a pocket of stimmed marines, there goes the investment.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I always loved the hero aspect of Warcraft 3. It was a very bold move by Blizzard since it made balancing hellish, but I love it. It tends to lead to exciting battles, especially early on in 1v1. In general, I like dealing with smaller squad fights rather than massing. Sc2 has its great sides and is fun to watch, but I enjoy Wc3's mechanics a bit more. The micro in wc3 is more appealing to me than the micro in sc2.

 

[GhostThruster]

i like wc3's gameplay more. i feel sc2's battles are a series of small skirmishes, and isn't so much about killing as many units as you can, but rebuilding as many as you can in the shortest amount of time until the next skirmish. in wc3, the battles are long and exciting, and a flurry of micro skills can be shown off.

 

[marko9]

WC3 the end.