C&C:RA3 or ST2

[BaNa]

SC2=SC1 with better gfx.

hey that would be fine by me, i loved sc. I hope they dont ruin it with too many things from the C&C style games, i read one of the lead designers from the last c&c crossed over to blizzard.

[pharoph]

cause blizzard rules at making games. like i say, EA games.
fuck up everything.


CURSE YOU EA!

[Gota]

Yeah really.
CAnt even make a cool boxing game for the pc,whats up with that.

[SwiftSpear]

Clearly Demigod as I don't want another Brood War Add-On featuring a new engine presented as entire new full-price game (plus I don't like those clicking RTS games - I prefer to have at least a bit of a strategy game like Total Annihilation or even Supcom did provide) and I don't have any hope left for any C&C title as from the release of Tiberian Sun...

Well I might buy SC2 later on because Blizzard always has nice singleplayer campaigns...

SC has enough strategy. If TA had 1 quarter the player hours in high end players that starcraft has it would look much the same at a strategic level (if not alot worse)

[Otherside]

whoever says SC2 is just SC with better graphics is teh loller

if you actually bothered taking a better look, there is alot of new units and some of the old ones are gone aswell as a ton of new stuff it will resemble SC in many ways but it will be a totally different game.

[BlackLiger]

whoever says SC2 is just SC with better graphics is teh loller

if you actually bothered taking a better look, there is alot of new units and some of the old ones are gone aswell as a ton of new stuff it will resemble SC in many ways but it will be a totally different game.

And obviously you need to take a closer look also, since in quite a few cases, those 'new' units do the EXACT same job as the old ones.

It'd be like removing the freedom fighter in BA and replacing it with an F22 model that moves at the same speed and fires the same missiles.

[Otherside]

new zerg bares little resemblance to old zerg

[[Krogoth86]]

SC has enough strategy. If TA had 1 quarter the player hours in high end players that starcraft has it would look much the same at a strategic level (if not alot worse)

What has playerbase to do with strategic depth? Spring has to offer games on Kindergarten level then...

If you're satisfied with some "simple" rock-paper-scissor stuff then that's ok. Imo Starcraft is a nice game but it never was very interesting to me when it comes to actually caring about increasing my skills to play it.

Apart from that it also is about the strategies: In Starcraft it's more about what strategies you'll come up with the few units the game offers and not which units you choose for the desired strategy. Heck - it doesn't even have a sea level after all and all those things that made especially TA so interesting imo...

That doesn't make Starcraft a bad game but I did and will play it just for the campaign and some lulz on a private LAN maybe...

[Snipawolf]

new zerg bares little resemblance to old zerg

You can't trust your eyes.

[Bartosh]

There both going to suck, every rts game I used to love that has been converted over to 3d has been raped.
AoE 3
C&C 3
Warcraft 3
I guess star craft 2 might not suck because it hasn├óÔé¼Ôäót reached the epic 3 fail.

But regardless all 3d rts lose a lot. (Excluding Spring and Supreme commander)

The maps are tiny; apparently everybody decided gathering resources and fun to build defenses were a bad idea. And there├óÔé¼Ôäós an upsetting trend towards fast game play. A good rts should play out like a good game of chess. Not unreal tournament played by a 6 year old A.D.D kid on pixie sticks and Speed.

On a side note: The Shot gun infantry are probably the coolest thing I├óÔé¼Ôäóve ever seen

[rattle]

You haven't been to the northpole then.