Warcraft 2 r0x0rz my b0x0rz

[Jamski]

I fail to see how any of these games are dissimilar enough to cause people to praise one and damn another.

I've played C&C, C&C2, Starcraft, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Dune 2, Dune 2000, Dune Emperor, and they are all just the same.

I play them though to see the stories for the different sides and try all the units, and they are quite entertaining, but since the only differences are cosmetic (they all have basically the same control systems and strategies) I fail to see how people can argue about one being superior to another.

Probably I'm missing the strange and deep subtleties, but I doubt they are that strange or that deep.

-Jam

[Nubclear]

I hate it when I agree with you Jamski

[Jamski]

You can't help being a smart lad.

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jamski
I fail to see how any of these games are dissimilar enough to cause people to praise one and damn another.

I've played C&C, C&C2, Starcraft, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Dune 2, Dune 2000, Dune Emperor, and they are all just the same.

I play them though to see the stories for the different sides and try all the units, and they are quite entertaining, but since the only differences are cosmetic (they all have basically the same control systems and strategies) I fail to see how people can argue about one being superior to another.

Probably I'm missing the strange and deep subtleties, but I doubt they are that strange or that deep.

-Jam

Jamski I'm sorry but it just reflects your ignorance of the genre in MP. To a non-RPG fan I bet all RPGs look the same, whereas I'm sure you would post a lengthy reason why they aren't should someone make that claim. All civ games look alike to someone that doesn't play TBS and appreciate the differences between various versions. Sure much is the same between games in many genres, but the devil, as always, is in the detail. It is those fine points, those distinctions, that can make one game great and another mediocre.

[Jamski]

Come on. Less than 5% of gamers play MP, and that's a simple fact.

I have played these games though, some of them a lot, and I'm not saying they're crap. I think its kind of nice to switch from one to another and use the same controls, same strategies etc, without having to learn a new system. But you can't say Warcraft 3 is poo, and C&C Generals is great. The games are sooo similar.

Its just a matter of taste as to which "setting" you prefer.

The fact that I know these games mostly in SP (MP is too much of a click fest for me) doesn't mean I know the games any less.

The original and interesting RTS games are those that break away from the "harvest stuff, build base, upgrade base, build units, repeat" formula, and they are very few.

But who says original is better?

-Jam

[DrSpike]

The point is you said you can't see why a person would like one game and not like another within the genre. Many, more than 5%, of the x>y statements refer to MP, where it is particularly true that the games aren't the same.

Moreover it's a stupid statement for SP also, just less so. What if I said that RPG x was exactly the same as RPG y because they both had quests and character leveling and similar monsters to kill. You'd jump all over me if one of those games did what all RPGs do well and the other was a poor copy.

It's not what the games do (there are always going to be shared elements within a genre) it's how well they do them.

So I repeat, I think your statement above that there are no differences within genre just because they are superficially the same is a ridiculous one.

[Jamski]

I'm not saying there are no differences in the genre, but just between those popular Westwood and Blizzard products I listed before.

Its the same as the IE games from Interplay/BIS/Bioware. They're all basically the same, just with some different fluff. Totally different to the AE games, although the same genre and the same settings, the engine and play method is totally different.

On the same theme, MoO is not Civ in space with different units. Its a totally different system. However, Starcraft is Warcraft in space, and Dune is C&C in space. There's huge chunks of code reused, for crying out loud. All they have to do to churn out another game is to make new graphics, new unit stats and new stories.

Ok, WC3 and Dune Emperor saw a move to 3d instead of isometric, but since 99% of the time you never rotate the view anyway, no big deal.

Agreed, you can claim you prefer one game to another, but this endless "WC3 leik totally PWNs SC!!!1!!eleven!!" crap is completly meaningless.

Small differences, that's all...

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Well WC3 is different than SC (and the earlier warcraft games) because of the hero focus, which is one example of a distinction your blanket statement misses. The 'small differences' are plausible grounds for people to like one game and not the other.

Also, I would again suggest that most "WC3 leik totally PWNs SC!!!1!!eleven!!" comments refer specifically to MP, and the games are very very different and it is perfectly possible to like one and not like the other.

Admit it, you just made a blanket statement with no thought and now you're just digging. Go on, admit it, I dare ya.

[Jamski]

Well WC3 is different than SC (and the earlier warcraft games) because of the hero focus, which is one example of a distinction your blanket statement misses.

The hero's are just a development on Tanya etc

Not something really new, like the persistant heros in the Warlords Battlecry games. There if your hero dies, you die, its game over.

Admit it, you just made a blanket statement with no thought and now you're just digging. Go on, admit it, I dare ya.

After you admit you're a rabid WC3 fanboi, and you don't want to admit its not soo different to the rest of the pack.

-Jam

[DrSpike]

I see you are dodging the MP aspect, which as I say is often the root of comparative statements, even if MP gamers make up a smaller proportion of the total.

I know people that like SC and hate WC3, and the other way around. Personally I think they are both great games, but they are indisputably very different in gameplay terms, and anyone that has played them both seriously in MP will concur I am certain. Since you have posted in the past you have little/no experience in that area perhaps you would miss such a distinction, and post blinkered blanket statements instead.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jamski
I play them though to see the stories for the different sides and try all the units, and they are quite entertaining, but since the only differences are cosmetic (they all have basically the same control systems and strategies) I fail to see how people can argue about one being superior to another.

I'd add that also for SP I consider it reasonable that things like plot and mission variety are grounds to think one game superior to another. Also the variety between the factions is another key ground when comparing those games on your list.

Are you telling me you can't think of 2 RPGs with the same engine, one being noticeably better than the other? I know for a fact you can.

[Jamski]

Monster How can I not rise to that bait?

I know people that like SC and hate WC3, and the other way around. Personally I think they are both great games, but they are indisputably very different in gameplay terms, and anyone that has played them both seriously in MP will concur I am certain.

I think they're both good games too, but basically they are the same game. Imagine if you took chess and gave the pieces different moves. It would still be chess, although you'd need all kinds of new tactics, and countertactics.

I suppose you'd say it would be a totally new game if the queen could only move diagonally *sigh*

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Since you have not played those games competitively in MP how would you know? People making blanket statements in ignorance is a pet hate of mine, and I wont let even you get away with it. You just don't know what you are talking about. The games share many aspects, but there are so many key differences in gameplay a better analogy is 2 different but related card games. There is nothing wrong with saying card game x > card game y, or liking WC3 and not C&C. This is true for SP and particularly true for MP.

[Jamski]

What only move diagonally? (edit - ah you realised)

I'm sorry, but your claim that one needs to play these games competetively in MP to see the differences between them only reenforces my arguement that they are all basically the same. A casual gamer will only see that the units have different names and graphics.

And the same with "my favorite darling RPGs". The IE games are all basically the same, which is why I refrain from saying one is "better" or "worse" than another. That would just be my subjective opinion. Of course I've played them to death, so I could tell you all the little differences, but, because I've played them to death (not to mention used the same programmes to read the same codes and scripts in the same languages) I realise that they are the same on a basic level.

here is nothing wrong with saying card game x > card game y, or liking WC3 and not C&C.

Sure. But a SC player saying "WC3 sux" is hardly a considered opinion, just rabid crap.

The games share many aspects, but there are so many key differences in gameplay a better analogy is 2 different but related card games.

You have it backwards. The card games are different games using the same representational materials. The WC/SC/Dune/C&C games are the same game, using different representational materials.

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Ok I'm giving up now since I have nothing new to add, and I'm disappointed I have to say Jamski. Your post, which I quoted above, clearly said you don't think one can say one game is superior to another.

I have illustrated why one might reasonable argue that one game on your list is superior to another for SP, and especially for MP where many such statements are made.