warcraft III versus Command & conquer generals

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-24 04:55am

OH god. Don't get diablo II. Unless you like sitting at your computer for endless hours and accomplishing nothing, I wouldn't recomend it. I wasted a couple years of my life playing that game in a fruitless endeavor to get pixels. People are so pathetic, that they try to

A. Hack your account to steal your pixels
B. PK you
C. Scam you

The company fucks you over by randomly whiping the slate clean and making patches that destroy your character's performance. Half the characters are so badly nerfed they can't do squat unless you have superhuman, near-impossible-to-get equipment. The other half that haven't been nerfed just suck.

On top of that, the brilliant game designers decided it was too easy to level your character and get items (which it wasn't for the latter). Instead of playing 1000000000000000000000 hours to find crappy items (even with 800% magic find), you now are not allowed to MF fun on bosses, do cow runs for leveling, or get rushes. You have to play the game for even more endless hours to level your character. It is extremely tedious. They took ALL the fun out of the game. I loved to rush/get rushed, and level. I liked to MF with my characters. NOw it is a travesty. You have ot make Diablo a damn full-time job to be able to play it.

All the while, the enemies do more damage, you do less damage, and I hate the new lagromancer. They still suck as summoners, but this time they have fewer summons. Supposedly they are "stronger," but it took away the essence of what it meant to play Necro. You no longer command hordes of weak guys, but smalll bands of weak guys who are slightly stronger than the other weak guys.

Druids still get assraped, Sorcs and Zons are lamerfic, and hackers run amuck because the system is so cheap compared to the previous patch.

Trading is stupid. If you aren't trade-hacked, then you usually get attacked by scammers or people who think you were born yesterday. Since magic find sucks more than it did before for many people, it is extremely hard to get good items to trade, and if you ain't got good items, no one trades. Most items are worth shit. Gold is worth shit as well.

Gotta love Diablo currency too. Every day the currency changes. Before they used SOjs, then hacked items. You couldn't but shit on Diablo "trade-zones" because all the fucking trade items were purchased with... HACKED charms. Wtf?

I gave up on Diablo long ago when it became retarded. I think Diablo I was better.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-07-24 05:51am

Neither game has any repeat play value as far as I'm concerned.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-25 02:20pm

Baka^Ni wrote:Micro adds a nice level of skill to the game, sure beats selecting all your 100 units and click on an enemy tank.

Ah, so you think games should be decided by whoever can click on the "Cast Spell" button the fastest?

I'm going to throw my own subjective opinion in here and say that a good RTS should be about taking and holding territory. In my opinion, you shouldn't have to worry about what your units are doing; that should be largely taken care of by the AI governing the unit itself. The key should be where your units are.

Think of it this way; in chess, do you roll dice to see whether the Bishop successfully attacks the Queen? Similarly, in a battle, I don't think the battle should be significantly affected by special powers that certain units have that you must individually direct and activate. It should, however, be affected by such things like the terrain (do you control the high ground? is it an open field or are you bottlenecked?), by your tactical positioning (will the enemy be walking into a hail of concentrated fire? are your forces concentrated and vulnerable to bombardment?), and by support units (do you have artillery or aircraft to call in?). In short, strategically the game should be about positioning, with the battles raging over key positions to hold.

Directing individual units as the primary means to victory is less of a Real Time Strategy and more of a Real Time Tactical game.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2004-07-25 02:34pm

I never liked War Craft III for the idea of heroes as the main piece to win the game; it's just too centralized around them then.

C&C:Generals was fun but it lost its touch when it can't make formations. If say, you have a horde of 20 tanks and you click for them to move, they will all try to move into that one spot which is really annoying because then some of the units will actually stop thus ruining the tempo. They can't be spread out or in a loose formation; it's always tight. Easy mode in campaign is just that, hard is practically the same as easy, and I haven't tried hardest yet and don't plan to. It doesn't have any replay value except the occasional be the GLA and nuke a street full of citizens.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2004-07-25 05:59pm

Neither. Get Total Annilation. Its much better. I wanted to like C&C Generals, but I found it boring.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-07-25 08:51pm

SylasGaunt wrote:Generals. Nothing I saw when I played Warcraft 3 ever managed to equal the sheer visual joy of dropping a nuclear missle ontop of someone while he's already getting smashed with nuclear artillery and bombs.

Bah. TA artillery duel where an enemy was attempting a massive naval bombardment to secure an LZ and I was trying to hold it back. By mutual consent neither of us had the uber-artillery guns, nukes or other sundry weapons.

Azazel · Post by **Azazel** » 2004-07-28 12:01am

I vote Warcraft 3. I have not played generals so It is difficult to compare for me but I enjoy WCIII because of its atmosphere, voice acting, and strategy. This is my opinion of course.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2004-07-30 11:35am

after seeing the RTS game thread above, how is the empires earth games compared to these 2, generals and warcraft III.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2004-07-30 12:46pm

phongn wrote: Bah. TA artillery duel where an enemy was attempting a massive naval bombardment to secure an LZ and I was trying to hold it back. By mutual consent neither of us had the uber-artillery guns, nukes or other sundry weapons.

TA artillery duels are awesome to watch yes, however they weren't what I was comparing now were they?

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-07-30 08:20pm

Get SC or TA, or dieeeeee

get WCIII if you want SP

For MP:
generals: TA-lite-ish
WCIII: RPG-ish

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2004-07-31 10:16am

I tried Generals on the hardest setting once, just for a wee skermis. I was routed within 5 minutes. I don't know how the computer did it but as i was just getting round to building a barracs the three computer oponents where sending 16 fecking tanks a piece at me. I died rather horribly.

Azazel · Post by **Azazel** » 2004-07-31 12:32pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Baka^Ni wrote:Micro adds a nice level of skill to the game, sure beats selecting all your 100 units and click on an enemy tank.
Ah, so you think games should be decided by whoever can click on the "Cast Spell" button the fastest?

I'm going to throw my own subjective opinion in here and say that a good RTS should be about taking and holding territory. In my opinion, you shouldn't have to worry about what your units are doing; that should be largely taken care of by the AI governing the unit itself. The key should be where your units are.

Think of it this way; in chess, do you roll dice to see whether the Bishop successfully attacks the Queen? Similarly, in a battle, I don't think the battle should be significantly affected by special powers that certain units have that you must individually direct and activate. It should, however, be affected by such things like the terrain (do you control the high ground? is it an open field or are you bottlenecked?), by your tactical positioning (will the enemy be walking into a hail of concentrated fire? are your forces concentrated and vulnerable to bombardment?), and by support units (do you have artillery or aircraft to call in?). In short, strategically the game should be about positioning, with the battles raging over key positions to hold.

Directing individual units as the primary means to victory is less of a Real Time Strategy and more of a Real Time Tactical game.

Micro is quite a bit more than just clicking the cast spell repeatedly. It is key to keep your army alive and to make sure your opponent's dies. When you need to keep your opponent from expanding to another gold mine that's control of land. You can trap opponents heroes in my own base so I could kill them and make them waste resources. It's more strategic than you might think if you haven't played it. I haven't played generals but it looked similar enough to red alert that I didn't feel buying it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-07-31 09:52pm

Thankfully, the only fantasy RTS I play doesn't force you to micromanage the battles or peons the way WC does...

And Hard on C&C:G just cheats, just like all other RTS AI. I looked at the score board thingy after a game, and he'd magically harvested hundreds of thousands of dollars more than there were on the map. Hooray

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-08-01 09:16pm

Stark wrote:And Hard on C&C:G just cheats, just like all other RTS AI. I looked at the score board thingy after a game, and he'd magically harvested hundreds of thousands of dollars more than there were on the map. Hooray

But then, that's the only way they have a fighting chance.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-08-02 10:27am

Stark wrote:And Hard on C&C:G just cheats, just like all other RTS AI. I looked at the score board thingy after a game, and he'd magically harvested hundreds of thousands of dollars more than there were on the map. Hooray

Had the AI build any Supply drop zones(US), Hackers(China) or Black Markets(GLA), since they could be the reason for the extra chash

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-02 10:41am

Although I love TA and will promote it till I die, I'm going to have to throw in a plug for Rise of Nations. RTS that's devilishly fun, and can be both microed or macroed, depending on your play style.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-08-03 01:15am

Warcraft 3. The joys of watching a nuke drop on an enemy base, or the giant laser cut across swathes of tanks, was cool . . . for about 1 hour. Then the game was as boring as hell- just orgy after orgy of massing. Nothing nearly as CHALLENGING as WC3.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-08-03 01:35am

Azazel wrote:Micro is quite a bit more than just clicking the cast spell repeatedly. It is key to keep your army alive and to make sure your opponent's dies.

I'm not sure how the second sentence is supposed to support the first. Yes, micromanagement is key to survival, because the game is designed that way.

When you need to keep your opponent from expanding to another gold mine that's control of land.

Sure, but the battle over that gold mine is going to be decided by micromanagement, and the micro involved in that battle is not strategy, but tactics.

You can trap opponents heroes in my own base so I could kill them and make them waste resources.

If the game weren't so focused around micromanagement, heroes would not even be as big a factor as they are; besides which, shouldn't that hero have a Town Portal Scroll on them to prevent just such an event from occurring?

It's more strategic than you might think if you haven't played it.

I have played Warcraft 3 on many occasions.

I'm not trying to say WC3 is without strategy; what I'm saying is that the game is designed to significantly favor whomever can better micromanage their forces, shifting the focus of the game from Real Time Strategy towards Real Time Tactics.

Yes, it takes more "skill" to come out of a WC3 battle intact, much in the same way that paintball requires more "skill" than Chess; it's less of an abstract strategy and campaign to prosecute and more of a direct competition with more immediate gratification.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-08-03 02:43am

Guardsman Bass wrote:Warcraft 3. The joys of watching a nuke drop on an enemy base, or the giant laser cut across swathes of tanks, was cool . . . for about 1 hour. Then the game was as boring as hell- just orgy after orgy of massing. Nothing nearly as CHALLENGING as WC3.

Someone clearly never played on anything but easy. I challenge you to find the time to sit back and watch superweapon destruction against three or four hards on a small map.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-03 02:52am

Howedar wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:Warcraft 3. The joys of watching a nuke drop on an enemy base, or the giant laser cut across swathes of tanks, was cool . . . for about 1 hour. Then the game was as boring as hell- just orgy after orgy of massing. Nothing nearly as CHALLENGING as WC3.
Someone clearly never played on anything but easy. I challenge you to find the time to sit back and watch superweapon destruction against three or four hards on a small map.

Heh heh ... especially when the enemy put money into tanks while you were building superweapons, and when your superweapon is ready you have to wait five minutes before it's ready to fire ... while the enemy's tanks are rolling into your base.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-08-03 12:09pm

WC3 is a LOT easier to run. It's graphics are as good or better, and it runs on weaker machines with much less fuss. Tech support is excellent, and the multiplayer is easy as hell to use.

WC3 and Generals both have very different play styles. I find both equally enjoyable- there's as much fun to be had in a stunning tank battle as there is a cleverly run small-unit battle. The big difference is that Generals will work less often, require more time to get to work, and won't have the massive and extremely varied mod community WC3 gets. If you buy WC3, you'll be getting a fantastic large-army Lord of the Rings game, a variety of cool deathmatch games, and a veritable fount of team RPGs, in addition to an excellent small-unit RTS.

Generals will just give you... well, Generals.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-03 12:13pm

Thirdfain wrote:and won't have the massive and extremely varied mod community WC3 gets.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAHAHAHha

That one was for Darth Uts. The WC3 Mod community is just 4
guys doing all the work, and 10,000 fanwhores saying HURR HURR HURR

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-08-03 12:43pm

-shrug- If those 4 guys churned out Skibi's, Tides of Blood, The Ring Wars, and Skies of Arcadia, who am I to knock them?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-08-04 01:16pm

Howedar wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:Warcraft 3. The joys of watching a nuke drop on an enemy base, or the giant laser cut across swathes of tanks, was cool . . . for about 1 hour. Then the game was as boring as hell- just orgy after orgy of massing. Nothing nearly as CHALLENGING as WC3.
Someone clearly never played on anything but easy. I challenge you to find the time to sit back and watch superweapon destruction against three or four hards on a small map.

Better yet- I played other humans on both, and not bad humans at that. WC3 was much more fun- but thats just my opinion.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2004-08-04 04:25pm

,

MKSheppard wrote:
Thirdfain wrote:and won't have the massive and extremely varied mod community WC3 gets.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAHAHAHha

That one was for Darth Uts. The WC3 Mod community is just 4
guys doing all the work, and 10,000 fanwhores saying HURR HURR HURR

RTS games have never had the kind of modding community seen in the popular FPSs. There is a healthy number of maps coming into circulation every now and then, you can't ask for much more. I don't even know any RTS thats gotten heavily modded for multiplayer? In fact; I'd go so far as to say that WC3 has been one of the most modded RTSs to date, along with a huge variety of maps that might even give Starcraft a run for its money.