Andrew Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 HUH?? you must've followed the starcraft story wrong. Kerrigan does not seek to destroy the Terrans and Protoss (who are by far not all dead) She tries to control them, dominate them. All the races are still alive.Did you play the last BW mission? In the briefing, it specifically says you are finishing off their armies. The ending says that the entire UED force was wiped out, and both the Terran and Protoss fleets crippled.Umm, it said no UED made it home (earth), and the protoss were just in bad shape not exterminated.but yah, Kerrigan was taking all the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hum, is that not what I said...? ???ANyways, back on topic. I bought the full version of TFT yesterday (it was on sale) and I have to say, it does have some redeeming qualities. I just played a fun MP game, 3v3, and I think I'm finally getting the hang of this "macro" thing. :P At my army's peak, I had: A Tauren Chieften, 5 tauren, 7 grunts, a Shadow Hunter (he is really ugly without the mask), a Beastmaster, two raiders, and three Headhunters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 i think that Blizzard will cease to exist before they put out a WarCraft 4. they've already lost 4 of their most important employees. this is reminescent of how EA killed slowly sucked away Westwood until there was nothing left.Blizzard is on shaky financial ground and the morale of employees is extremely low. Blizzard will probably be evaporating in the not so distant future. especially after WoW fails. Pay to Play is a niche market which very few games have ever profited from. it will always be a niche market because the majority of game buyers refuse to be extorted.True... :(Sad, but true :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawat Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Well let's hope they'll survive until the making of Warcraft 4. You can bet that there will be Starcraft 2... It is their most popular rts game. It's even more successful than Warcraft ever will be. (Personally i prefer Warcraft though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 But their unique gameplay,cinematics and cut-ins are cool,and maybe in a few years' time WC3 will be so damn souped-up! :O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Well, in my opinion, Blizzard is the best ever at RTS, ID is unmatched at FPS, and Bioware is the king of RPG.If Blizzard cease to exist, it will be a very grim day.Westwood is gone too, so I wonder who's going to make the decent RTS games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 If it was lame,WC 2 and 3 would have been repitions and pple would have gotten bored of it but look--->WC3 was so hot and so is FT here as it is now sold out! :O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Yeah.Blizzard is just the best at their work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawat Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I never said that it is lame, i just gave the battle.net community on their forums a look and found out that Starcraft is much more popular than wc3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Well I alaways preferred Warcraft to Starcraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Hmm, i think i'll go for Starcraft as well. Warcraft 2 was awesome, warcraft 3 was great, but Starcraft was world shaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3m0nger Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 How can blizzard be on A shaky financial ground After they sold like a million copies of warcraft III ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 He meant that SC was a super sell-out as in "world shaking" and not financially shaky.I like fantasy/mythical RTS like WC3 though I never played WC 1 and 2 before,let alone SC, so I still prefer WC3 anyway.Only one option. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Uh, low, he was probably referring to this post:Blizzard is on shaky financial ground and the morale of employees is extremely low.And to answer his question: Blizzard is on "shaky financial ground" because they only release a game about once every 3 years. ::) Notice how WW releases about every six months? There's your answer.Think about it: RA-TS: 2 years. TS-RA2: about a year(?). RA2-Emperor: 7 months or so. Emperor-Renegade: 6 months or so. Renegdae-Generals: about a year.Now Blizzard: WarII-Starcraft: 2 years. StarCraft-WarIII: 4 years.And there you go. That's why Blizzard is in the hole. That, and they're run by pompous baboons that ignore the fan's cries for SC2. (Of course, they'd ruin it anyways by trying to turn into a "role-playing strategy" like MoreCrap 3.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yeah but Westwood games have been getting pretty poor recently: Renegade, Generals, TS, emperor, etc, apart from RA2. At least blizzard realease a good game every few years instead of mass producing crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Quantity always comes at the expense of quality.There's no exception.And that Blizzard ignored the fans cries for Starcraft 2 is totally acceptable for me.The technology is just about to change into the better by a giant leap, and I want Starcraft II to be made after that leap, not before.Blizzard should, in my opinion, get subsidied because they're making art of the finest quality, but don't get enough money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted July 17, 2003 Author Share Posted July 17, 2003 well, you gotta make a choice, either to ignore the starcraft fans, or ignore the warcraft fans. And since warcraft was so long ago for those fans, and i think the next blizzard rts will be Starcraft 2 anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Yeah but Westwood games have been getting pretty poor recently: Renegade, Generals, TS, emperor, etc, apart from RA2. At least blizzard realease a good game every few years instead of mass producing crap.How dare you call Emperor "crap"! What the f*ck are you even doing here?! Imposter! Get out of my sight!And Renegade was a great game. Has Blizzard even done an FPS? No. RA2 won game of the year from 2 places! TS had an amazing storyline, balanced gameplay, and fun Single Player! And Generals is terrific; tell me with a straight face you've seen better graphiucs or a more comprehensive matchmaker!OK, sorry. But I am so effing sick and tired of people bashing EA. How anyone can possibly prefer those abominations Blizzard makes to real strategy games like AOE and Generals is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Quantity always comes at the expense of quality.There's no exception.And that Blizzard ignored the fans cries for Starcraft 2 is totally acceptable for me.The technology is just about to change into the better by a giant leap, and I want Starcraft II to be made after that leap, not before.Blizzard should, in my opinion, get subsidied because they're making art of the finest quality, but don't get enough money.They should get subsidised? Their games are an art form? OMFG, now I am 100% certain they imbed subliminal messages into their games or something. THEY'RE JUST GAMES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! (And mediocre ones at that.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Now back to WC3:FT,what happen to Illidan in there,what does he actually do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkElf49 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 bah, you people are mis-guided as to what a true strategy is. WC3 is a simple hack and slash/micro managment game. If you want true realtime strategy at it's finest get kohan. It's entirely different and much more strategic. www.kohan.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 well, you can tell me what you want, but everyone thinks different anyway, and it is all merely opinions.I too think that EA produced only mediocore games since Red Alert. None of them were too great, though Renegade was a nice one made by westwood.And what's strategy? It is a broad genre. You have micro strategy games like warcraft 3 and the Myth series, those too are strategy games, but they just focus on micro management.On the other hand you have strategy games like medieval total war, where macro is your only option. You cannot realy micro all your soldiers, only divisions. And you have to keep morale etc. in mind. And ofcourse there are games like Red Alert, rush games, fast paced action where micro is less important, but fast building and quick reaction +organizing good defences is important.It is all your choice, but you cannot say that one game is not a true strategy game. if you are playing each of these games right, you will see that in all of them, you are constantly moving around controlling your armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawat Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 In the end it's always the question of taste... So i have no understanding for people who are bashing games, that can OBJECTIVELY be considered as good, just because they don't like them.Iowzeewee: Illidan tries -commanded by Kil'jaeden, whom he pledged loyalty to- to destroy the "Frozen Throne", which holds Ner'zhul the Lich King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3m0nger Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Best replays to be found @www.warcraftreplays.comwww.replayers.comOr soon to be my clan www.theinclan.com. And yes, we are sponsord by INTEL :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 How dare you call Emperor "crap"! What the f*ck are you even doing here?! Imposter! Get out of my sight!Im here because of Dune, in the dunieverse people say how they don't like the prequels so much but you don't go and call them imposters, just because I like Dune doesn't mean i have to like every single dune spinoff.And Renegade was a great game. Has Blizzard even done an FPS? No. RA2 won game of the year from 2 places! TS had an amazing storyline, balanced gameplay, and fun Single Player! And Generals is terrific; tell me with a straight face you've seen better graphiucs or a more comprehensive matchmaker!Apart from RA2, I liked RA2.OK, sorry. But I am so effing sick and tired of people bashing EA. How anyone can possibly prefer those abominations Blizzard makes to real strategy games like AOE and Generals is beyond me.Oh right so I can't bash EA but it is alright for you to insult Blizzard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.