![]() I would compare Total Annihilation but it too was just as simple as WC2. WC1 and WC2 were great for their time, but they were basic RTS games compared to their rivals Command & Conquer and C&C: Red Alert. C&C Generals (and Zero Hour) gave WC3 a run for it's money, but had a powerful map editor. Starcraft had an emphasis on APM and unit control, but this one made you think on which specific units to rely on, especially in multiplayer. This was basically a slower, medieval Starcraft (with a better GUI) but with Upkeep and non-map-specific hero units to add to the strategy. WC3 however was more dynamic and varied, so you had to play differently than just building the best units as fast as you can (although you can still do this for the single player campaign). I remember that humans were slightly overpowered on sea maps. Bezerkers can heal, but Rangers do more damage). WC1, both races are 99.5% the same at that point, aside from some unit stat differences.įor WC2, there was no difference between both races aside from the magic and minor changes with land units (i.e. You can shove it where the sun don't shine Blizzard.I know it's your opinion and all, but I'd like to ask how was WC3 worse than the first two? Still enjoyable, but Blizzard was able to remake SC and make it available for free. For a game that was way worse than the first two.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |