DukeLeto Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 OK kiddies, here it is:The OFFICAL thread to "express you feelings" on this volitile topic.Feel free to diss, flame, and generaly insult the company you like less. But please, try to obey the forum rules, i.e. no exsessive cursing, etc., or I or Gob shall have to lock it...
nemafakei Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Ok... Provided from now on, WW/Blizzard discussions STAY HERE, you can let off as much steam as you like about them here. If not, the thread gets closed.
TMA_1 Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Its like comparing apples and oranges. The companies are totally different in how they make rts games. you cant compare them realistically.
Navaros Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 blizzard = crappy obsolete games with graphics from the Atari 2600 era, and often designed for children between the ages of 2 -4 years old, with great eternal support and continual interest in all their gameswestwood = good, state of the art games that are plagued by horrible bugs which ruin the gameplay. some of the most atrocious customer support (lack thereof is more accurate)/developer interest in the history of gaming.
Nyarlathotep Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 IMHO, there's no discussion about games. They both make excellent games.There IS a discussion about how they support their games. Westwood gives the customers a few patches (EBFD, Renegade for example), while Blizzard still supports Diablo for example. Blizzard tries to avoid cheating/hacking and releases patches for it (Diablo for example, they still do). I do not see Westwood making the same efforts.The way I see things, if Westwood would have supported their games a bit more and showed that they care for their paying customers, they would have a bigger community, better sales and in the end more money (in the end they might have been able to prevent EA from buying them). I think that they have the opinion that customers will accept the way they support their games, but after the recent experiences with EBFD and Renegade, they might think again in the near future.Btw Duke, it's okay to ask for opinions, but I would ask everyone to withold from any flaming or insults..
DukeLeto Posted August 7, 2002 Author Posted August 7, 2002 Nema's right...Oh, yeah, and did I mention, NAV, no excessive cursing?OK:Westwood:No stupid 12-unit group cap!Better interfaceNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Easier to learnNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Made the first RTSNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Better balanceNo stupid 12-unit group cap!They occasionally LISTEN to their fans, eg:-They said it was OK to mod, while Blizzard makes it harder with every game-They did an FPS, which was partially on request, while Blizzard, despite being repeatedly told by many offical and unofficial polls that people would Rather have StarCraft II than World of WarCraft, declared they would do World of WarCraft anyways.Oh yeah, did I mention: No stupid 12-unit group cap!I rest my case---for now.P.S. No stupid 12-unit group cap!
exatreide Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 lets see westwood....64 unit cap is way to much. Rush rush rush. not to mention with lots of unit gameplay slows down alot.64 unit capno unit capno unit cap no unit capno unit cap.Abandonment of there games. Sc didnt sell incredibly well the day it was launched. but they suported and over time lots of people grew to love it. like ME[/]No qustion about it. blizerd wins hands down. Who needs good graphics when you have kick ass gameplay?not to mention *cough* Plots *cough*BLizerd.......easy as eating pancakes.
Navaros Posted August 7, 2002 Posted August 7, 2002 Nema's right...Oh, yeah, and did I mention, NAV, no excessive cursing?OK:Westwood:No stupid 12-unit group cap!Better interfaceNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Easier to learnNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Made the first RTSNo stupid 12-unit group cap!Better balanceNo stupid 12-unit group cap!They occasionally LISTEN to their fans, eg:-They said it was OK to mod, while Blizzard makes it harder with every game-They did an FPS, which was partially on request, while Blizzard, despite being repeatedly told by many offical and unofficial polls that people would Rather have StarCraft II than World of WarCraft, declared they would do World of WarCraft anyways.Oh yeah, did I mention: No stupid 12-unit group cap!I rest my case---for now.P.S. No stupid 12-unit group cap!I gotta say, this here post is one of the very few that I have ever seen on this board that is *almost* as good as one of the posts I might make. GJ. Keep up the good work.
DukeLeto Posted August 8, 2002 Author Posted August 8, 2002 Thank you. ;DEx, what the heck do you mean, 64 is to high a group cap? Oh yeah, and if Blizzard's games were balnaced properly in the first place, they wouldn't *need* all those patches. ::)
thomas Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 emperor has no strategy all you do is rush. I f thats what you like ok I like blizards 12 unit cap games they offer better micro managment and more strategy. thats my opinion and if you disagree well you're wrong! ;)
Desert_Eagle25 Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 I agree with Scytale. i beleive the only reason u guys diss WC3 and Blizzard is because u guys just aren't cut out for their strategic playing games. Why cant u just admit it is a good game. A million other people agree, why cant you?
exatreide Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 um no i was saying 64 unit cap was to much. is there realy need for more than 12? or 15?
Desert_Eagle25 Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 Not talkin to u Ex, i know u like Blizz. ;D
exatreide Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 hehe guess i should qoute people huh? :P. was refering to what Duke LEto said
Desert_Eagle25 Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 OoOoOo...heheeI dont understand why e hates it though. I most definitely love that unit cap and the food cap(sort of) adds a mix of real strategy into the game. Unlike Emp were all u do now is MASS LIKE HELL, AND RUSH UR ENEMY BEFORE HE RUSHES U.
thomas Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 the taron dudes must be hungry they eat 5 food :O :O :)
Desert_Eagle25 Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 The Tauren dude kicks ass...he's like A WALKING TANK !!He's got Stomp, wich does about...300 dmg on lvl3 AND stun, he has the Energy wave that does 300 dmg on lvl3 and multple dmg to units in a straight line. He has Endurance Aura, one of the greatest Auras, and he can Reincarnate !!!Plus he's got like 1200 health !!!
exatreide Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 speaking of whichdose westwood have herosnooooooooooooooooooothey dont now do they?another 1 for blizzerd.
Frodo_I Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 Dude, this is a no brainerRegardless of the group capsI actually LIKE unit caps since you can't turtle as muchAnd blizzard SUPPORTS their gamesALso, you may have a hard time modding blizzard games, but you can make maps up the arse. And ppl download them from the game interface. You don't have to email them to everyone you wanna play withOh, lets not mention that blizzard has a chat server that supports chat for ALL games, and it has NEVER, NEVER, been +m'd so that you can't talk in chat
Nyarlathotep Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 Thank you. ;DEx, what the heck do you mean, 64 is to high a group cap? Oh yeah, and if Blizzard's games were balnaced properly in the first place, they wouldn't *need* all those patches. ::)They do not release patches for unbalancies. If you'd look at what some patches do/did, you'd notice that patches also are released to stop cheating/hacking. Now that's what I call support !!
Caid Ivik Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 Those unit caps where made because Warcraft III had to be something like Commandos or MechCommander, that's strategy, where any unit is strategical. But all WCs and Starcraft too were about rush tactics like in C&C or RA. Caps are remnants of worst fault of Dune II, just as DII's can be overseen because it was first RTS.
DukeLeto Posted August 8, 2002 Author Posted August 8, 2002 Thank you. ;DEx, what the heck do you mean, 64 is to high a group cap? Oh yeah, and if Blizzard's games were balnaced properly in the first place, they wouldn't *need* all those patches. ::)They do not release patches for unbalancies. If you'd look at what some patches do/did, you'd notice that patches also are released to stop cheating/hacking. Now that's what I call support !!What the heck do you mean "no balance changes?" >:( Take a look at this EXACT copy of the the data on the 1.08 patch: ;DStarCraft Patch 1.08 - Latest Bug and Balance FixesBalance Changes: Terran: Valkrie: Damage increase to 6 per missile. Acceleration and velocity increased slightly. Build time decreased. Science Facility: Build time decreased. Irradiate research cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas. Yamato Cannon research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Missile Turret: Decreased cost to 75 minerals. Factory: Charon Missile Booster research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Dropship: Increased speed. Goliath: Increased ground attack range. Battle Cruiser: Build time decreased. Supply cost decreased to 6. Protoss: Dragoon: Build time increased. Scout: Decreased cost to 275 minerals, 125 gas. Carrier: Supply cost decreased to 6. Templar: Psi Storm Damage reduced. Corsair: Disruption Web spell duration decreased. Zealot: Shields decreased to 60 and hit points increased to 100. Zerg: Queen: Decreased build cost to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Ultralisk: Supply cost decreased to 4. Queen's Nest: Spawn Broodling cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Hydralisk Den: Lurker Aspect cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas. Hydralisk speed upgrade cost increased to 150 minerals, 150 gas. Spawning Pool: Increased build cost to 200 minerals Sunken Colony: Building armor increased to 2. Hit points decreased to 300. And just about every patch is like that!
Desert_Eagle25 Posted August 8, 2002 Posted August 8, 2002 EVERY patch? No i dont think so. That maybe ONE of the patches for it. There are others that modify the battle.net, and so on. Thats some nice data, but unless u get us all the data, i'm still going with Blizzard. Hell, either way I'd go with Blizzard 100%. Dont get me wrong, i love WW's style of play, but i also love BliZzards style of strategy and SUPPORT. Well just today i sent them an email about Wc3 crashing on me, and a half an hour later they replied with the solution(Defragmentation) !! For WW, i sent about 10 letters, no replies AT ALL, and then i just got tired of it and asked Doc Nyar.
DukeLeto Posted August 8, 2002 Author Posted August 8, 2002 Hmm...1.03 patch had blance changes, and 1.05 and 1.06, and 1.07. Hmm...And most of it is undoing what was done in the last patch. lol ;D
Recommended Posts