Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2006-07-16 at 00:54:02
It's been, what? Nine years now?
Warcraft? Good except the population cap limits you to about a command group and a half... (18 units)
C&C? The units cost far too much for the rate of income you can acheive on most maps.
Civilization? It's a whole different type of strategy...slow, and it gets INCREDIBLY complicated late into a game, managing over a hundred cities and such...
Rome:TW? You can't adapt, because once you start a game your units are locked, you can't get any more. If you choose an "adaptable" army, you'll get owned by a "zerg" army. Rock, paper, scissors, really. Pick a strategy and hope your opponent picked the one yours owns.
And most recently...
Star Wars: EaW? The game is EXTREMELY limited by the fact you can only have one unit building at any given time, and the fact you can only build new buildings on "build nodes" located across the maps.
So I haven't played Starcraft in almost a year, just the above games, and I reinstall it and I'm just... wow... this game kicks so many levels of ass.
Long live Starcraft!
Warcraft? Good except the population cap limits you to about a command group and a half... (18 units)
C&C? The units cost far too much for the rate of income you can acheive on most maps.
Civilization? It's a whole different type of strategy...slow, and it gets INCREDIBLY complicated late into a game, managing over a hundred cities and such...
Rome:TW? You can't adapt, because once you start a game your units are locked, you can't get any more. If you choose an "adaptable" army, you'll get owned by a "zerg" army. Rock, paper, scissors, really. Pick a strategy and hope your opponent picked the one yours owns.
And most recently...
Star Wars: EaW? The game is EXTREMELY limited by the fact you can only have one unit building at any given time, and the fact you can only build new buildings on "build nodes" located across the maps.
So I haven't played Starcraft in almost a year, just the above games, and I reinstall it and I'm just... wow... this game kicks so many levels of ass.
Long live Starcraft!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-07-16 at 01:21:34
It's because online play is quick and convinent, and it doesn't eat huge measures of system resources. It does feel like it gets old.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-07-16 at 01:24:52
QUOTE(Shapechanger @ Jul 15 2006, 11:53 PM)
It's been, what? Nine years now?
Warcraft? Good except the population cap limits you to about a command group and a half... (18 units)
C&C? The units cost far too much for the rate of income you can acheive on most maps.
Civilization? It's a whole different type of strategy...slow, and it gets INCREDIBLY complicated late into a game, managing over a hundred cities and such...
Rome:TW? You can't adapt, because once you start a game your units are locked, you can't get any more. If you choose an "adaptable" army, you'll get owned by a "zerg" army. Rock, paper, scissors, really. Pick a strategy and hope your opponent picked the one yours owns.
And most recently...
Star Wars: EaW? The game is EXTREMELY limited by the fact you can only have one unit building at any given time, and the fact you can only build new buildings on "build nodes" located across the maps.
So I haven't played Starcraft in almost a year, just the above games, and I reinstall it and I'm just... wow... this game kicks so many levels of ass.
Long live Starcraft!
[right][snapback]524596[/snapback][/right]
Warcraft? Good except the population cap limits you to about a command group and a half... (18 units)
C&C? The units cost far too much for the rate of income you can acheive on most maps.
Civilization? It's a whole different type of strategy...slow, and it gets INCREDIBLY complicated late into a game, managing over a hundred cities and such...
Rome:TW? You can't adapt, because once you start a game your units are locked, you can't get any more. If you choose an "adaptable" army, you'll get owned by a "zerg" army. Rock, paper, scissors, really. Pick a strategy and hope your opponent picked the one yours owns.
And most recently...
Star Wars: EaW? The game is EXTREMELY limited by the fact you can only have one unit building at any given time, and the fact you can only build new buildings on "build nodes" located across the maps.
So I haven't played Starcraft in almost a year, just the above games, and I reinstall it and I'm just... wow... this game kicks so many levels of ass.
Long live Starcraft!
[right][snapback]524596[/snapback][/right]
And who said commanding ~18 units is bad? I like that much better than what Starcraft has. It emphasises unit selection and micro much more.
C&C Generals: Zero Hour didn't seem to have that problem, but I'll take your word for it. I enjoyed the game, although it sort of got very frustrating.
Civilization is a whole different type of game, so they are uncomparable.
Rome Total War is not really an online game. It's single player campaigns are very fun, and truely the shining point of the game. And most of the time, people pick similar armies in RTW. At least in RTW, the original, but not sure about BI or Alexander(I believe that is what it's called.) 2v2s are better anyway, they give more possibillities.
And I've never played the Starwars game (It's Empire at War, right?)
Right now, Starcraft is almost sapped of all replay value it once had... I've had it for about 9 years now
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-07-16 at 04:40:33
It's because it's so perfectly balanced and the UMS makes the americans stay.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2006-07-16 at 05:07:53
Starcraft you can make maps, and they made it simple, but have a lot of depth, so the UMS lasts a long time. Anyone who said they've been playing melee since the game came out is either Lying or incredible tolerant of the same thing over and over again. I go on starcraft because I like to talk to people, if they weren't they I'd have no reason to actually play the game anymore.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-07-16 at 05:45:15
Starcraft: simple and easy. What more do you need ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by saibaman8 on 2006-07-16 at 09:39:56
With UMS, you can make a good game without it being too complicated to play or make.
I did like C&C a lot though... back when it was made by Westwood. Partly because it was really easy to mod. But EA killed C&C.
I did like C&C a lot though... back when it was made by Westwood. Partly because it was really easy to mod. But EA killed C&C.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2006-07-16 at 11:47:20
QUOTE(saibaman8 @ Jul 16 2006, 09:39 AM)
I did like C&C a lot though... back when it was made by Westwood. Partly because it was really easy to mod. But EA killed C&C.
[right][snapback]524703[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]524703[/snapback][/right]
Agreed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demon on 2006-07-16 at 12:02:20
The only one I consider close to Starcraft would be WarcraftIII, and that would only be a few quirks with Starcraft. If I could just change Starcraft with elements of WCIII OOOoooo it would make the perfect BNet
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-07-16 at 14:06:05
Red Alert 2 measures up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Killer_Kow(MM) on 2006-07-16 at 17:11:38
Versatility.