StarCraft® II

Warcraft 3 vs Starcraft 2?

What do you like more?

And why?
Edited by Manic on 17/09/2012 07:33 BST
Reply Quote
The truth is these games are very similar! Personally i like more Starcraft 2 because i like everything is doing with space! I don't like swords, magics, castles...

But you better to ask Warcraft 3 vs Starcraft!! Starcraft 2 is much better improved and new game opposite warcraft 3 is old game!
Reply Quote
Maybe OLD GAME but W3 it's really GOOD GAME. I still play Warcraft 3 with my friends which ( like me ) like starcraft 2 more... BOTH GAMES ARE GREAT
Reply Quote
Warcraft 3 is a very micro intensive game.

Starcraft 2 is a very macro intensive game.

That's pretty much the big difference.

You can do both in either game, but the one definitely takes the lead in importance over the other.

Personally I like Warcraft 3 more, I found it to be easier for me and more fun.
Edited by TriZ on 20/09/2012 19:49 BST
Reply Quote
Warcraft 3 is a very micro intensive game.

Starcraft 2 is a very macro intensive game.

True, I like warcraft less though, and that's just my opinion I just hate that there is like endless amount of unique cheezy all-ins. Take an expansion and you're dead, guess its partly because every map was badly designed for defensive purposes and there were so few defensive units early game (sentries etc.) And stationary units like turrets were bad because maps were so open wide that you had to make like a milion of them to defend your base.

So the only way to defend was to make aggressive units and if you are gonna make those you might as well make more and push out an all-in.
Reply Quote
Reign of Chaos had the most amazing story I've seen in a video game. I had played Warcraft 2 and the way the orcs vs humans concept evolved just blew my mind.

I like the playstyle of SC2 more though. I've replayed Warcraft 3 a few times since 2010, and my reaction was always "move you damn unit! why do you keep bumping into your friends like that?"
Reply Quote
Warcraft 3 is more casual and starcraft 2 is more professional. Also the players in starcraft 2 are more friendly. Starcraft 2 online is just to hard for me but it is I think the bigest game for now.
Edited by Manic on 24/09/2012 14:26 BST
Reply Quote
I prefer Starcraft II now. However if we had a Warcraft IV with all the little upgrades and improvements that Starcraft II brought I wouldn't be so sure. Warcraft III is a little date now and all.
Reply Quote
Warcraft 3 gave me a headache.

Starcraft 2 gave me a nervous breackdown.

Still like Starcraft 2 more than WC3. If only because of the graphics.
Reply Quote
Bought Starcraft II hoping that it might keep me in online rts 1v1 heaven as warcraft III has for almost a decade, but I've hardly played the game it's just not the same or even similar.

1. No heroes
2. Pro replays I tend to find quite boring as no action really occurs untill about the 8 minute mark in a lot of pro replays I've watched. Players tend to "macro up" which is just boring to watch as a third or forth expo goes down with a few skirmishes here and there. Then one huge deciding battle and it's gg :(
3.No rpg elements (spells, npc creeps, hireable mercs, potions, magic, summons etc
4. Massively macro ( whats the point microing individual units in such high food armies anyway?)
5. Grubby gets pwned (yes orc fanboy :P )

There are some real balance issues at high pro level play and the meta game is all but finished but for my skill level there is still room for inovation or 'off the wall' strats.

All I can think of for now. I'm just hoping Blizzard will continue development for Warcraft series but how likely is that with their holy trinity of solid cash cows, WOW, Starcraft II and Diablo III. I still hold hope and in the meantime still play online as getting a decent game on Northrend is still possible with minimal wait times. ;)
Reply Quote
@ Eric
This is only because the pro leagues all died except for china.

@ babyjesuz
Not true for all races surely?

Blizshouter is still representing warcraft 3 shoutcasts on youtube with a few other notables (come back Chumpesque!)
Reply Quote
Argh! Necromancer!
Well, anyway. Most of those things you listed are exagerrations or actually have benefits. For example, heroes made the game extremely overcentred. Right now Zerg players overrely on the Infestor but at least the other two races have a wider variety of strategies and gameplay styles and the whole game doesn't come down to single units.

The game has less micro but it definately matters, micro makes a differance in each engagement and high food armies or not, there is a point to micromanagement.

RPG elements? WC3 had RPG elements?
And in pro leagues there are often a lot of engagements and different things happening, wc3 is all about the damn heroes.
Reply Quote
21/11/2012 17:16Posted by Rasofe
wc3 is all about the damn heroes.

precisely RPG type.
Reply Quote
Look, I like my 70+ kills Commander Ghost as anyone else, but there should never be a gurantee that I get such a hero. Also, if I do get a 70+ kills Commander Ghost doesn't mean that the unit should improve, it just means that I as a player and that particular individual unit work very well together.

Once I managed to nuke this guy and the Ghost was later slaughtered by SCV's. It was so tragic.
That's about the degree of RPG elements a game needs. When you care about a unit, like a banshee or a particular medivac -full squad, rather than have that unit just be pivotal to the gameplay entirely.

Also it's not like the items system in WC3 wasn't overly simplistic and meaningless.
Reply Quote
22/11/2012 05:54Posted by Rasofe

22/11/2012 05:54Posted by Rasofe


Items made a real deal especially on strength (vials of health) and intelligence (pendants of mana). Also don't forget invulnerability and anti-magic potions.
Reply Quote
I mean meaningless as in they don't show up on your hero, except the aura and orbs.
If I have a maul equiped on my Death Knight, why is he using a Sword?
I know that's like asking for customisation, but isn't that what "RPG elements" are, rather than just stat boosts?
Edited by Rasofe on 23/11/2012 15:45 GMT
Reply Quote
23/11/2012 15:45Posted by Rasofe
RPG elements

Consist of a story, action and most of the things happening being centered on a specific character. However WCIII not only takes RPG in but also provides battalion strategy.
Reply Quote
WC3 is and will always remain superior regardless of its state

SC2 promised (and failed) to deliver the same custom game experience as wc3.

Make no mistake people SC2 is that is all about the ladder and even then it sort of failed compared to wc3 (which hade automated tournaments promoting more play, where as here we have a ladder point system that actully makes you want to play LESS).
Reply Quote
24/11/2012 00:48Posted by AlexOdhin
Consist of a story, action and most of the things happening being centered on a specific character. However WCIII not only takes RPG in but also provides battalion strategy.

In a character-driven plot like HotS or WoL that's great, it gives immersion and makes you care more. In day to day gameplay, do you ever really remember the name of your Archmage?
I only remember Conjurus Rex because the name sounds like Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Reply Quote
24/11/2012 10:48Posted by Rasofe
do you ever really remember the name of your Archmage?

Only the most lovely sounding. Still the point was that you were the hero and commander of your forces which makes it almost similar to Diablo where you could write the desired name.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel