The thing I think you guys aren't doing is grading the game on how you liked it the first time you played it. All of you are looking at are how the games are affecting you right now and how you like it right now, but Warcraft was definitely funner to play when it first came out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Federer lost Wimbledon. Why? Becase none of you bastards cheered for him...
The thing I think you guys aren't doing is grading the game on how you liked it the first time you played it. All of you are looking at are how the games are affecting you right now and how you like it right now, but Warcraft was definitely funner to play when it first came out.
Not only is that not necessarily true, but even if that was the case, it's not necessarily wrong to do.
I find initial appeal to the games were both probably about the same... both very good.
The issue with Warcraft that Starcraft does better, is the better level of replay value, competitiveness, and strategy that starcraft has, and warcraft doesn't have as much of.
Starcraft had a better plot, more movies, better movies, and more in-game speech/events going on. This made it so it perhaps even had greater initial appeal that WC2. It also had a better-featured map editor, an extra race, more units, and better graphics. Starcraft had somewhat of an advantage as it could be compared to warcraft 2, and while even though it had better graphics because it was a newer game, it still had better graphics.
Warcraft 2 did follow warcraft 1... but not as many people serious played that, and those who did probably didn't think of it to be too good in the first place, even comparable to warcraft 2.
Plus Starcraft had three races that were completely different of each other. Warcraft 2's Rangers were the same as the Axe Throwers and the Knights were the same as the Orges. Starcraft's units were completely unique.
(Also, I got both Starcraft and Warcraft 2 at about same time...so...)
starcraft takes skill, warcraft 2 is just for newbies with old computers
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
this is not part of my post, this is a signature, it's not a really big signature for now but maybe some time later it will have cool pictures and more information and stuff on it like from games or some other things i don't know
I replied to your comment. That's what quoting is for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
You have to admit that he's good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
You have to admit that he's good.
Mhmm...
Right...
So anyway, I still go with Warcraft 2. It was better playing it the first time than Starcraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
You have to admit that he's good.
I find initial appeal to the games were both probably about the same... both very good.
The issue with Warcraft that Starcraft does better, is the better level of replay value, competitiveness, and strategy that starcraft has, and warcraft doesn't have as much of.
Starcraft had a better plot, more movies, better movies, and more in-game speech/events going on. This made it so it perhaps even had greater initial appeal that WC2. It also had a better-featured map editor, an extra race, more units, and better graphics. Starcraft had somewhat of an advantage as it could be compared to warcraft 2, and while even though it had better graphics because it was a newer game, it still had better graphics.
Warcraft 2 did follow warcraft 1... but not as many people serious played that, and those who did probably didn't think of it to be too good in the first place, even comparable to warcraft 2.
(Also, I got both Starcraft and Warcraft 2 at about same time...so...)
Please leave a comment if you vote. I'm interested in your opinion.
I never played wc2 so it's kind of unfair for me to vote but whatever.
The only Warcraft game I have played is WC3 reign of chaos and wc3 frozen throne, which I also own.