Best RTS that can be compared to Starcraft

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: mchammer187

Originally posted by: Malladine
For: lemme guess, you suck at WC3?

warcraft 3 is definitely less complicated

because hero micro accounts for more than half of the micro that matters

you can be horrible at micro and good with your hero and can still win pretty decently

if you know how to play your hero and what units to build half the battle is already won

how is this less complicated than SC, in which there are no heros to control and the units to build stay the same regardless of your opponent and their strategy?

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: mchammer187

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
TA is more along the lines of SC

WC3 is more complicated, and you either love it or hate it for that

Wait, i need that again, wc3 complicated???

uhh yeah. it takes more to win than just building more units faster than your opponent ala sc

or, you could just try to mass units but you will suck. and then probably hate the game. and thus post on a message board about how the game sucks.

you think SC is purely about massing units

nothing can be farther from the truth

maybe at beginner and intermediate levels of play but if you ever watch the best of the best /ala the korean replays

there is no massing when you get to an expert level

95% of the players and games are done at beginner and intermediate levels of play. massing just is not a viable strat in wc3 - you will lose. unless you are one of those top players in the world, massing IS the strat for SC.

massing is not the strat and even though i dont play SC anymore I was ranked on the US ladder before

in WC3 :RoC, WC3: TFT

SC: brood wars

never was for plain old SC

and massing was never a viable strategy in Brood Wars there so your 95% is a gross overexaggeration

i never said WC3 was about massing I am saying Starcraft was not about massing the way it was meant to be played

I said WC3 lacked depth because they made the hero role far to important
my main issue with it is micro: approximately 50% all micro dealt with the hero
the other 50% deals microing all your units

so in SC microing each individual unit was far more important because you can be "pretty good" at WC3 by managing a hero well and have very basic micro skills otherwise

and at the expert level of play Starcraft has much more depth than WC3

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: jim1976
Thanks. I took a look at Majesty and homeworld2. The latter looks great I'll d/l a demo and check it out. My first choice though still seems to be Warhammer 40k.

Be aware, the demo version only lets you play with ships up to frigates, which as far as the rest of the ships go, don't take all that much abuse. At least, that's how it was when I downloaded the demo before the game was released.
The destroyers, and especially battlecruisers are really nice - send a cruiser against a fleet of frigates, and it'll just sweep them out. Unless the frigates have bomber escort.

 

[JBT]

WC3 with FT expansion.

 

[spunkz]

does anyone still play age of empires games? i always liked those over the fantasy ones

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

The Homeworld series is good.

The original was the best single player story of the three as well as great multiplayer. Graphics are dated though

Cataclysm ties with HW2 for the best multiplayer,

HW2 looks pretty but the single player sucks.

 

[stnicralisk]

Starcraft used to be really good and then they made big game hunters and then the strategy was gone.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: jim1976
TA looks like a game that is compatible with my tastes but it's a little bit old...
As far as concerns W3 it's a great game with very good gfx but not so close to my tastes.
Anyone else?

You can still DL the TA demo....I know 'cause I did it a couple weeks ago. I don't know why though, LOL. The music is unsurpassed (though I couldn't get it to work on the demo) and it is pure gaming greatness. :thumbsup: It is old though.....I've always wanted to give Spellforce a try which is a combo RTS and RPG. There's a demo for that too.

 

[wayliff]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: BigDonJohnson
warcraft3

Can never match SC.

 

[EmperorRob]

Originally posted by: spunkz
does anyone still play age of empires games? i always liked those over the fantasy ones

I'm playing through the Age of Mythology campaign in between my Dai Senryaku VII and Halo 2 sessions.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: jim1976
Thanks. I took a look at Majesty and homeworld2. The latter looks great I'll d/l a demo and check it out. My first choice though still seems to be Warhammer 40k.

Be aware, the demo version only lets you play with ships up to frigates, which as far as the rest of the ships go, don't take all that much abuse. At least, that's how it was when I downloaded the demo before the game was released.
The destroyers, and especially battlecruisers are really nice - send a cruiser against a fleet of frigates, and it'll just sweep them out. Unless the frigates have bomber escort.

Thanks Jeff. I'll keep that in mind

 

[Jedibus]

Another vote for Warhammer 40K Dawn of War

 

[Jedibus]

Oh, and an expansion was just confirmed.

Winter Assault

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: torpid
TA came out before starcraft and is singificantly better. The main area that SC was better was in the online play systems. TA is still unmatched in what it offered - the ability to get a full scale machine of war that required ZERO micromanagement until your mining resources were depleted. Unlimited group size, auto-queueing units into a group before they were created, unlimited builder queues, etc.

After playing TA, Starcraft was Starcrap. Severely limited group sizes and ridiculous amounts of micromanagement. If it weren't for the cool units, I would have stopped playing within 30 minutes.

I had a friend back in the day who tried to convince me of TA's clear superiority. He failed, and so did TA (relative to SC ofcourse).

StarCraft is a perfect example that all games should live up to. It was FAR from the best looking game of its time (no hardware acceleration), it was far from the most advanced RTS of its day (TA obviously is "superior"), it really wasn't the most advanced in anything. The only thing it had going for it was (and still is really) simplicity. It wasn't hard to pick up, it wasn't hard to have fun playing it. Single player was nice, fairly long, and great to get your feet wet. Then the FREE online multiplayer was a blast especially with the flexibility it had.

Games like TA deserve and "A" for effort, but they ultimately "fail" because they didn't follow the directions of delivering a game, which are intended to be played for fun. TA was almost too advanced for its own good. A similar situation is Doom3. Incredible graphics, but while id migth have been overly concerned with graphics, its too bad they didn't deliever a game that was as fun as the graphics were good.

Look at WoW now, fairly sub par graphics, especially compared to Doom3, but noone really cares because the game is fun. Blizzard is pretty good at doing that.

TA certainly isn't a bad game, its more of a niche game, though. It best suits certain players similar to how some people simply prefer a steak to a cheeseberger, but most are going to go for the cheeseberger.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Just play Starcraft. Starcraft is godly. No other RTS could possibly be up to par with starcraft. Well, maybe Starcraft 2 Starcraft is all I play. Who cares about graphics? The gameplay is simply superb. Warcraft III sucks compared to Starcraft in terms of depth, strategy, skill, etc... And that's why Starcraft is like a national sport of Korea. Don't even try to find a replacement for it. Just play Starcraft

*EDIT*
@torpid: Micro is one of the reasons why Starcraft is so good. Micro is very important to your skill. If you didnt micro, my 12 zealots could rape your ~20 hydras, but with proper micro, zealots would get shredded. Micro is just another reason why Stacraft is a great game. And if you cant handle it, play some newbie ass game like wc3 where the AI pretty much micros your units for you. IMO, wc3 is only good for UMS (custom) maps.

 

[Cancer12]

I'd have to agree that Starcraft was more complicated on more levels and an overall better game than WC3.

 

[Tarrant64]

Starcraft!!!!!

 

[spaceman]

RISE OF NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sparkyclarky]

I'm still a fan of the Age of games, but they are quite different from blizzard games

 

[dbuttcheek69]

definitely Red Alert 2

 

[magomago]

Age of Empires 2 + The Expansion pack (quite possibly the best "expansion" pack out there...) = Best RTS


But the thing is, AoE is NOWHERE near as fast as SC. IN AOE2 plaing 2 hour games against the enemy is common place. I remember trying out starcraft my first year in the dorms (which was last year...lol I was late to the game) and at MOST these games last 40 minutes. SC is just a lot faster paced. And since I'm not into mindless clicking, AOE2 wins it for me (as well as looking absolutely gorgeous)

Too bad AoM wasn't anywhere near as awsome as AOE2 I also missed the history that the first two contained, that the third didn't have

 

[BaboonGuy]

S T A R C R A F T

best game I've ever played. There's nothing quite like sending in one drop ship with two templars and decimating your opponent's economy in a few seconds. The mix of micro and macro is fantastic.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy
S T A R C R A F T

best game I've ever played. There's nothing quite like sending in one drop ship with two templars and decimating your opponent's economy in a few seconds. The mix of micro and macro is fantastic.

Hated the interface....took up nearly half of the screen....which is a double bad when screen resolution is so limited (800X600???). You could only see one very small piece of the map at one time. Anyway, that alone pretty much ruined the game for me.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Just play Starcraft. Starcraft is godly. No other RTS could possibly be up to par with starcraft. Well, maybe Starcraft 2 Starcraft is all I play. Who cares about graphics? The gameplay is simply superb. Warcraft III sucks compared to Starcraft in terms of depth, strategy, skill, etc... And that's why Starcraft is like a national sport of Korea. Don't even try to find a replacement for it. Just play Starcraft

*EDIT*
@torpid: Micro is one of the reasons why Starcraft is so good. Micro is very important to your skill. If you didnt micro, my 12 zealots could rape your ~20 hydras, but with proper micro, zealots would get shredded. Micro is just another reason why Stacraft is a great game. And if you cant handle it, play some newbie ass game like wc3 where the AI pretty much micros your units for you. IMO, wc3 is only good for UMS (custom) maps.

Have you ever actually played WC3 online? The AI is absolutely terrible, if you let the AI micro your units you WILL lose against any reasonably skilled opponent. I use single unit micro A LOT in WC3 and it's the only way to beat very skilled opponents. It just so happens there are also a lot of very bad WC3 players out there that CAN be beaten with terrible micro skills.

 

[SinNisTeR]

starcraft > *

lets just hope they dont screw up sc2 like they did with wc3