|
|
Post by Solid Đefect™ on Aug 7, 2006 7:57:49 GMT -8
Starcraft on n64? lol... it looks retarded on it. But yea.. starcraft was never as good as wc2 in my opinion.. but ye its a good game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Capn Spanky on Aug 8, 2006 23:04:33 GMT -8
Starcraft PWNS Warcraft. IMO if Warcraft 3 didnt have the better graphics and the Hero system, then SC would still be FAR better. Starcraft is still better though, just not by as much... in fact, I played it today... And, like Roggie said, why not Bnet? U using a cracked copy or sumthin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roggie on Aug 9, 2006 4:54:00 GMT -8
Starcraft is better than warcraft, but warcraft can up it in a lot of ways, with the Hero System, online clans (actual clans, not just clans in your name like Empire Earth and Starcraft), and the graphics. Starcraft is a better game, though, because it is more complicated, and it is harder to be good at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Solid Đefect™ on Aug 9, 2006 6:31:59 GMT -8
WC2>SC because wc wasn't an obvious rip off of the avp universe. wc3=thegay because you can have no where near the massive battles wc2 and sc2 offered...which was the point. heros=thegay because they just do.
You can't tell me that a 200 ogre and 200 knight fight wasnt the best. versus the 20 on 20 fight wc3 offered....(4 farm units for a fucking knight when only 90 is available.. fucking queer.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Roggie on Aug 9, 2006 6:41:22 GMT -8
It's 100 on teh expansion, and I can tel lyou 200 vs 200 isn't the best, back on Empire Earth, you would have battles of like 400 people vs 400, if you did it right, you could have 602. And control them all at one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeluXe on Aug 9, 2006 7:09:29 GMT -8
yeah i wasnt a big fan of WC3 i prefferred WC2....but i havent played SC
|
|
|
|
Post by FrkUout on Aug 9, 2006 7:55:44 GMT -8
This is drifting off topic...Take it to the general gaming discussion
=closed=
|
|
