New Game?

[Chris_Redfield]

How is that a contradiction?

You suggest StarCraft, yet bash Warcraft3, then say they are both overhyped. If you were actually being honest and sincere, youd say that StarCraft and WarCraft3 are very similar, and since WarCraft offers a lot more in terms of units, micro, macro, and the introduction of heroes, aswell as a good and solid EXP pack, and more modern graphics, youd suggest WarCraft3 over StarCraft.

StarCraft is a good game, but it's also extremely overhyped. That's not to say that your point about Command and Conquer is untrue. However the only Command and Conquer game i can think of as being overhyped is Generals; which also happens to be the worst incarnation of the series.

"Overhyped" looks to be an emotional statement. Ive already told you how "overhyped" games fare. Crysis MP is unplayed, ETQW MP is dead, HALO3 MP has suffered a 8-9 times loss in player numbers (from initial 250K to 30K). And there are a lot of RTS games on the market competing with each other.

StarCraft is played by 400´000 players (thats pretty much at any given time), WarCraft is played by 75´000 players. Now, these games dont offer persistency, and world has seen a lot of new games come out, so the competition is definitely out there. I dont see people playing a "****ty" game, unless theres a twist to it. And saying a game is "overhyped" is basically saying the game is "lackluster" in certain department. When you respond to me, which you will, please explain how the games are overhyped and where are they lacking.

I, personally, when I played RA2, Generals and Tiberium Wars, couldnt help but think how little has changed since I first played Red Alert, 8 years ago. Apart from graphical upgrades, the games setup has changed little. And its cool if it works for CnCc fans. But playing StarCraft immediately shows the difference in the depth of gameplay. StarCraft is not that popular because its "hyped", StarCraft is popular because it delivers. Its hopelessly outdated in visual aspects though.

Id also like for you to explain how is it that StarCraft took the most popular game votes in WCG website, leading at 40%?

Warcraft 3 is mediocre at best. One of the biggest reasons it's done so well is that it's overhyped. It's overhyped because it's made by Blizzard, and the fact that it's followed by hordes of overzealous fans who think Blizzard can do no wrong simply because they made StarCraft/WarCraft.

If a game is not fun, I dont play it. Thats how it is, unless the game offers a twist (persistent stat tracking for example, or how RPGs MMORPGs work). Youre saying overzealous Star/WarCraft players defend the games because its "Blizzard", but youre coming off as an overzealous CnC fan. The franchises are inarguably very different, so youre using the reason "hype", without really any conclusive evidence, to degrade a game franchise that has stood the test of time. People that I know, who play RTS games competitively, dont play CnC games. Face it, some games just "work". I found CnC to be too simplistic for me, but I accept that a lot of players find more fun in CnC than they do in StarCraft, which is too old, or WarCraft, that is taking place in a totally different setting.

However, I cant see "hype" to be of any blame, especially when we see factual examples of games failing because they were "overhyped". Is SC and WC3 failing?

It's like World of Warcraft.

WoW is a piss poor game, and there are/were plenty of other MMOs out there created to a higher quality than it, yet it exceeds them in terms of popularity. It's also popular because it has RTS fans of WarCraft/StarCraft on the back of it.

Is that your own personal opinion? Because I think SWAT4 is the best FPS multiplayer game, only played by 300-500 people at a time. I would also like to see the source to your claim that its popular because of WarCraft/StarCraft players. Most of my Xfire contact list consists of FPS players, a pretty heavy lot of them competitive players. WoW is popular amongst them. You also have not explained "why" WoW is a pisspoor game, which makes me believe that the statement is once again based on your emotions. I see WoW just "tick" with players. I havent played it, I have never been interested in RPGs or MMOs, but I see it work the same way Half Life 1 and all of its mods (CS1.6 mostly), is the worlds most played FPS game. Some things just work better.

If gamers had realised that it wasn't as good as the hype, it doesnt mean that there would be a decline in it's popularity. Especially if they have friends who also play or they are unaware of any alternatives. WoW was the first MMO experience for a lot of players.

I havent seen any hype surrounding WoW, except for the Xfire player count or the "overzealous" WoW haters. The last games I saw being overhyped, was HALO3, ETQW, Crysis, FFOW, Kane and Lynch, and they have all failed, in one way or the other.

So no, popularity doesnt necessarily mean a game's good. It's an overstatement to compare the RTS market to the FPS market as equal, since the FPS market is much bigger.

Your source to that claim, please?

I already put StarCraft in the list as "a game worth looking at". StarCraft is given this "legendary" status for god knows what reason, because there were better games out around that time.

Like what? Red Alert 1? Total Annihilation? Theres a very big difference between the three, and I see only StarCraft really pulling off the very balanced Micro/Macromanagement relation to each other. If it was a bad game, it would simply stay with its legendary status, but would not being played. It is played, and its hardly the hype. Hype means some fame, word, constantly being reminded of the awesomeness of the game. Theres none of that on the net.

It's probably due mostly to people wearing extra thick nostalgia goggles.

Yeah, which is exactly why DooM is the most played FPS at the moment.

Easy there, just accept that some games work, and that if youre comparing one game to anyother, your emotions have a big say in the final result.

Are you pulling my wiener? You can`t be serious.

Whats wrong with it? Its very atmospheric, has a pretty damn good storyline, offers some pretty damn engaging firefights, an excellent ambient soundtrack. It makes the game so much fun. The EXP packs actually are Expansion packs, with more guns, more enemies, more locations and are LOOOONG! HL2E1 was completed in 4 hours, E2 I did in about the same.

Again, as an SP experience, theres little to hate. I do admit that Perseus Mandate felt dragged at certain parts.

[L3adcannon]

FEAR is a fairly good shooter with its moments but it gets so bloody repetetive half way through. Same with the expansion packs.
Perseus Mandate is the worst of the two. I don`t even know how they let such a pos on the shelves. The level design, or the lack of it, alone makes my head explode.
But that`s just my taste.

I don`t really care about HL2. It`s a good SP game, but doesn`t deserve the hype it got and still gets.

I recommend STALKER which is a brilliant fuken game. There are some bugs and gameplay annoyances to be dealth with but the game is just awesome.

[solofowaffles]

I still stand by bioshock.

[Chris_Redfield]

FEAR is a fairly good shooter with its moments but it gets so bloody repetetive half way through. Same with the expansion packs.
Perseus Mandate is the worst of the two. I don`t even know how they let such a pos on the shelves. The level design, or the lack of it, alone makes my head explode.
But that`s just my taste.

I found the level design to be brilliant. Its dreadful, and a pretty uninspiring in the sense that youre not going through the game with a grin on your face. Everything in the game constantly reminds you that youre in a completely fvcked up situation and this cant possibly end well for you. And it didnt.

Some people just dislike corridor shooters. In defense of Perseus Mandate, it was made by a different studio. One thing one has to remember, is that Persues Mandate officially closes the "clone army" part of the franchise.

With ~1000 Replica troops killed throughout 3 games, FEAR is completed.

I can see why you disliked it though.

I don`t really care about HL2. It`s a good SP game, but doesn`t deserve the hype it got and still gets.

Brilliant physics, great graphics, an acceptable story (EXP packs are better though), cool firefights, some breathtaking visuals. Theres very little of the hype the game actually "didnt" meet.

I recommend STALKER which is a brilliant fuken game. There are some bugs and gameplay annoyances to be dealth with but the game is just awesome.

Somehow I missed STALKER.

STALKER is absolutely magnificent, as an SP experience. There are very few games that are so atmospheric as STALKER is. However, obviously flawed in many aspects, due to the lack of polish. Definitely a must buy though.

[L3adcannon]

Yeah, HL2 did introduce awesome physics, graphics but it didn`t feel like "the best PC game ever made" to me at all.
I was expecting a more seriously toned game with grittier atmosphere, less arcade and more realism and so on.
That`s the reason I don`t like HL2 as much as I do HL1 and was kinda dissapointed when I first played it.

[Chris_Redfield]

Yeah, HL2 did introduce awesome physics, graphics but it didn`t feel like "the best PC game ever made" to me at all.
I was expecting a more seriously toned game with grittier atmosphere, less arcade and more realism and so on.
That`s the reason I don`t like HL2 as much as I do HL1 and was kinda dissapointed when I first played it.

To make you feel less alone, I rank Half Life 1 as the best FPS game ever made, even today. :p

Im less interested in realism, than Im interested in atmosphere, and I definitely agree that it could have been more dark and more gritty. World as we know it, afterall, was pretty much fvcked. However, if you keep your eyes and mind open, you can appreciate the visuals, and even though the colours are kept colourful (as opposed to STALKER and FEAR, for example), the level design clearly speaks for itsself- the world is fvcked, things are grim. Maybe it didnt transfer as well as it did with STALKER, on psychological level, but it was definitely there.

As for HL1, man, there are specific, certain parts of the game, when the feeling of nostalgia, depression, and "something else" just makes it so perfect. It starts somewhere, where you battle the tank, while navigating through the sewers underneath it.

[L3adcannon]

HL1 creeped me the fuk out.
Everything in that game, starting from the train/tram sequence to the very end gave me goose-pumps- the ****ty but good graphics :|, the awesome sound effects with that goddamn echo (footsteps)and the constant feeling of paranoia from the moment I got the crowbar.
That game was and still is A+.

[nemesis908]

You suggest StarCraft, yet bash Warcraft3, then say they are both overhyped. If you were actually being honest and sincere, youd say that StarCraft and WarCraft3 are very similar, and since WarCraft offers a lot more in terms of units, micro, macro, and the introduction of heroes, aswell as a good and solid EXP pack, and more modern graphics, youd suggest WarCraft3 over StarCraft.

Warcraft 3 hardly sports modern graphics. In fact when i purchased it i was quite disappointed with its "modern" graphics, preferring the 2d sprites of games like StarCraft.


StarCraft and WarCraft3 are very similar, but i find WarCraft3 to be slow, unbalanced and awkward. It feels less expansive and less open for strategy. The heroes feature is the only redeeming feature. You could say that StarCraft also has these "qualities", but the game was made in 1998.

"Overhyped" looks to be an emotional statement. Ive already told you how "overhyped" games fare. Crysis MP is unplayed, ETQW MP is dead, HALO3 MP has suffered a 8-9 times loss in player numbers (from initial 250K to 30K). And there are a lot of RTS games on the market competing with each other.

A few examples of games doesnt apply to every other game there is.

StarCraft is played by 400´000 players (thats pretty much at any given time), WarCraft is played by 75´000 players. Now, these games dont offer persistency, and world has seen a lot of new games come out, so the competition is definitely out there. I dont see people playing a "****ty" game, unless theres a twist to it. And saying a game is "overhyped" is basically saying the game is "lackluster" in certain department. When you respond to me, which you will, please explain how the games are overhyped and where are they lacking.

400,000 people at any given time, 90% of which are Korean. I don't know why it's become such a cultural phenomenon over there. Probably the access provided by B.net coupled with their great broadband.

Saying a game is overhyped doesnt mean i think it's "lackluster". As i've already stated, StarCraft is a good game. But it's not the be all and end all of RTS like fans would like you to believe.

Where i think WarCraft3 is lacking isnt anywhere specific. I think the game's lacking as a whole. For me, it was a step in the wrong direction; it looked bad, combat is a matter of throwing units clumsily against each other without any consideration for your surrounding environment.

I, personally, when I played RA2, Generals and Tiberium Wars, couldnt help but think how little has changed since I first played Red Alert, 8 years ago. Apart from graphical upgrades, the games setup has changed little. And its cool if it works for CnCc fans. But playing StarCraft immediately shows the difference in the depth of gameplay. StarCraft is not that popular because its "hyped", StarCraft is popular because it delivers. Its hopelessly outdated in visual aspects though.

Little has changed in Red Alert 2, in fact i was suggesting it because it's like playing an updated version of the previous games. But why should it change anyway, "it delivers". I would like to know how StarCraft is more indepth than C&C:RA2, or any game of its time for that matter.

Id also like for you to explain how is it that StarCraft took the most popular game votes in WCG website, leading at 40%?

I dunno, maybe because it's a popular game? I didn't realise that was in dispute.

If a game is not fun, I dont play it. Thats how it is, unless the game offers a twist (persistent stat tracking for example, or how RPGs MMORPGs work). Youre saying overzealous Star/WarCraft players defend the games because its "Blizzard", but youre coming off as an overzealous CnC fan. The franchises are inarguably very different, so youre using the reason "hype", without really any conclusive evidence, to degrade a game franchise that has stood the test of time. People that I know, who play RTS games competitively, dont play CnC games. Face it, some games just "work". I found CnC to be too simplistic for me, but I accept that a lot of players find more fun in CnC than they do in StarCraft, which is too old, or WarCraft, that is taking place in a totally different setting.

Age isn't the factor here, when comparing C&C to WarCraft. Both franchises are pretty much the same age, with StarCraft being the younger of the two.

I would like to know how you've jumped to the conclusion that i'm an overzealous C&C fan, since i only suggested it amongst a group of other RTS games, along with StarCraft. It sounds to me like you're looking to find me as an opposite. I'm not that simple, i'm no more a fan of C&C than i am of StarCraft. The difference is, you don't hear nearly as much about C&C as you do with StarCraft/WarCraft.

I'm not using "hype" as a tool to degrade a game franchise. I own WarCraft: Orcs and Humans, WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness, WarCraft 2: Beyond the Dark Portal, and an expansion pack with over 1000 muds on. All of which i've played. To cut to the point, i found the previous games exceptional. I even had fun playing StarCraft (to which i own the expansion), i'm simply saying it's not worth all the hype, at least not nowadays.

However, I cant see "hype" to be of any blame, especially when we see factual examples of games failing because they were "overhyped". Is SC and WC3 failing?

You can't apply the examples of certain games failing to all games. Games can be overhyped AND successful.

Is that your own personal opinion? Because I think SWAT4 is the best FPS multiplayer game, only played by 300-500 people at a time. I would also like to see the source to your claim that its popular because of WarCraft/StarCraft players. Most of my Xfire contact list consists of FPS players, a pretty heavy lot of them competitive players. WoW is popular amongst them. You also have not explained "why" WoW is a pisspoor game, which makes me believe that the statement is once again based on your emotions. I see WoW just "tick" with players. I havent played it, I have never been interested in RPGs or MMOs, but I see it work the same way Half Life 1 and all of its mods (CS1.6 mostly), is the worlds most played FPS game. Some things just work better.

Of course it's my opinion, i thought that was made blatantly obvious when i said i disagreed with your opinion. There's also a hint of fact to be found among it though, i.e; for a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game it lacks in variety. The quests are all the same and the crafting system/economy are a joke. Not to mention they've further explored the route of WarCraft3, in fact i think they recycled the models in WarCraft3 for use in WoW. Most of what i hear from people who've maxed out their chars is, "it gets fun when you reach 60". That's a lot of work to only have fun when you reach level 60, right?

I havent seen any hype surrounding WoW, except for the Xfire player count or the "overzealous" WoW haters. The last games I saw being overhyped, was HALO3, ETQW, Crysis, FFOW, Kane and Lynch, and they have all failed, in one way or the other.

I find it hard to believe you didn't hear any hype regarding WoW. Even for someone who doesn't play MMOs.

Your source to that claim, please?

The source for my claim? Go to your local shop and count how many FPS titles there are compared to RTS titles.

Like what? Red Alert 1? Total Annihilation? Theres a very big difference between the three, and I see only StarCraft really pulling off the very balanced Micro/Macromanagement relation to each other. If it was a bad game, it would simply stay with its legendary status, but would not being played. It is played, and its hardly the hype. Hype means some fame, word, constantly being reminded of the awesomeness of the game. Theres none of that on the net.

Red Alert was released in 1996, two years prior to StarCraft, i think you overestimate StarCraft's development. It also had two expansion packs out by the time StarCraft was released. Age of Empires was out one year earlier, Total Annihilation was a hidden gem also released earlier, with graphics that were actually modern and there's nothing wrong with its micro/macro management. There was also War Inc that while it lacked in micro management abilities, granted the player to gain new technologies and fully upgrade vehicles, as well as purchasing other corporations (also released the year before).

Will you get off the subject of it being a bad game, i never said it was a bad game, and i never said it was all hype. I said it's overhyped, and you'd be ignorant to turn your back on the role hype plays.

There's none of it on the net, are you serious? You overhyped WarCraft3 when you recommended it to the OP.

Yeah, which is exactly why DooM is the most played FPS at the moment.

Easy there, just accept that some games work, and that if youre comparing one game to anyother, your emotions have a big say in the final result.

So what good is your nostalgia to a person who has never played the game before?

My emotions do have a say, i.e. How harshly i describe the game. But my emotion is based on experience, and i was angry with what they'd done to the game i'd been waiting years for.

Aren't you yourself basing your opinion on emotional response to a game?

[Chris_Redfield]

Warcraft 3 hardly sports modern graphics. In fact when i purchased it i was quite disappointed with its "modern" graphics, preferring the 2d sprites of games like StarCraft.

Released in 2002, and it was 3D. I personally think it looks cartoonish, and for that reason, I didnt play it until 2005. I refuse to play WC2 for the sole reason of it being just too cartoonish. Ignorant, you may say, but at the time I was deeply impressed with Warcraft: Orks vs Humans, and its exceptionally well executed dark and grim atmosphere. "Magic" and "Dark Magic" were serious business (with no sarcasm). WC2 was a completely different step, so was WC3. That being said, you cant deny that WC3 graphics are superior to SC. Modern, as a word, can be used loosely.

StarCraft and WarCraft3 are very similar, but i find WarCraft3 to be slow, unbalanced and awkward. It feels less expansive and less open for strategy. The heroes feature is the only redeeming feature. You could say that StarCraft also has these "qualities", but the game was made in 1998.

Both Star and WarCraft are exceptionally balanced. Thats what Ive liked about them. CnC is much less complex in that area. WarCraft3 is no less open for strategy as is StarCraft. I dont quite understand you, because on the macromanagement level, its pretty straightforward RTS- build bases, make units, move units, fight with units.

A few examples of games doesnt apply to every other game there is.

Cool, I bring you examples of real life, and you discard them just because "you feel like it". I actually had a point there, and not too heavily hidden. The point is, bad games can sell a lot, but wont be played in a long run. Good games may sell well, but they will always be played, until they are hopelessly outdated or outmatched by newer games that offer competition. In that aspect, a "few examples" definitely apply to every other game there is.

400,000 people at any given time, 90% of which are Korean. I don't know why it's become such a cultural phenomenon over there. Probably the access provided by B.net coupled with their great broadband.

Im curious to where you got those 90% from? Im not disputing the fact that majority of SC players are South Korean, just disputing your argumentation. StarCraft is popular in S. Korea because it gets media coverage because of its competitive play. Its played competitively, because it offers the best balance between micro/macro, aswell as best gameplay unit balance in the RTS market at the moment. But, its also extremely popular because it doesnt require a military grade PC to run. Which is the same reason you see CS1.6 being the most popular PC FPS game on multiplayer level. Its a great game, and it doesnt require resources. Competitive players, aswell as fans will probably go further, explaining how much skill CS1.6 requires over CSS (or in this case, how much skill StarCraft requires to be good at the game).

Saying a game is overhyped doesnt mean i think it's "lackluster". As i've already stated, StarCraft is a good game. But it's not the be all and end all of RTS like fans would like you to believe.

You seem to be saying that any publicity to a game means, that its "overhyped". StarCraft is not the best game there is, but the fact that its one of the most played games right now says, that people are enjoying it for a reason. Not because of its hype. You BUY the game because its hyped, you dont PLAY it. Unless youre a massohistic bastard with a fetish for misery. :laugh:

Basically, games like HALO3 sell millions and millions of copies, are played off the bat by hundreds of thousands, and when the smoke clears, its played by a far smaller group of people. Thats how overhyped games fare. Games that are still played, can not be considered overhyped because "overhyped" as a word means the game had too much publicity that it doesnt meet. SC and WC3 do meet what they promise, a well balanced RTS.

Where i think WarCraft3 is lacking isnt anywhere specific. I think the game's lacking as a whole. For me, it was a step in the wrong direction; it looked bad, combat is a matter of throwing units clumsily against each other without any consideration for your surrounding environment.

One of my friends has an APM of 300 in WarCraft3, StarCraft professional players go somewhere between 200 and 250. From my own experience, I would agree, that its clumsier, but APM pretty much says that SC3 as a whole demands more from the player, than SC.

Little has changed in Red Alert 2, in fact i was suggesting it because it's like playing an updated version of the previous games. But why should it change anyway, "it delivers". I would like to know how StarCraft is more indepth than C&C:RA2, or any game of its time for that matter.

Indeed, its cool that it works like that, but CnC is pretty much amassing the strongest units and throwing it at the enemy. Theres little to no micromanagement necessary unless were talking about competitive games, whereas in StarCraft, most units require micromanagement to sustain either their edge over other units, or become superior to superior units. This is how SC is superior to CnC (indepth), micromanagement plays a huge role, just as huge as macromanagement and the balance between the two. CnC and TA both pretty much focus more on macromanagement, and TA does so more apparently than all oher RTS games. The demo of the rounds in SC, compared to RA2 (just for example) show exactly what I mean. SC is built around "rock paper scissor" balance from toe to tip. CnC is more brutal, crude.

You can argue about my opinion, but you cant argue the facts. And the fact is WCG.

I dunno, maybe because it's a popular game? I didn't realise that was in dispute.

Check google, what WCG is. Its not popularity were talking about. People want StarCraft into WCG program because as an RTS, its the best there is for competition, at least those people think that way. You say "hype", I say "theres a reason".

I would like to know how you've jumped to the conclusion that i'm an overzealous C&C fan, since i only suggested it amongst a group of other RTS games, along with StarCraft. It sounds to me like you're looking to find me as an opposite. I'm not that simple, i'm no more a fan of C&C than i am of StarCraft. The difference is, you don't hear nearly as much about C&C as you do with StarCraft/WarCraft.

Oh, its easy. You see, when I suggest StarCraft or WarCraft, you say Im overhyping the game (but in all seriousness, Im just suggesting), and then you yourself suggest StarCraft and a bunch of other games, which makes your suggestions no different from mine, and I dont think you have the objectivity to admit that by your own standards, youre overhyping the games yourself.

As for your difference, its really as factual as your other claims. I see more hype surrounding CnC games, than SC/WC3 games. SC2 "promo" has so far consisted of a few threads in gaming forums, and a few Youtube.com videos. CnC: Tiberium Wars promo was literally, everywhere.

i'm simply saying it's not worth all the hype, at least not nowadays.

But wheres the hype? Hype is "exaggerated publicity". Where was hype in my suggestion? And therss literally no "hype" surrounding SC today, nor is there any hype surrounding WC3. So you really have no ground.

You can't apply the examples of certain games failing to all games. Games can be overhyped AND successful.

Theres a difference between "successful" and "successful" is that overhyped games (exaggerated publicity, lets talk factually, and not based on our emotions) arent played in the long run. I gave you factual examples of overpublicised games losing its playerbase. You have yet to show me an overpublicised game not losing its playerbase. Monetary success does not mean the game will be played in the long run.

Youll use WoW as an example, but WoW really delivers what a MMORPG player wants, and I dont see it being publicised or praised as the BEST MMO EVAR!

Ergo, no hype per se.

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game it lacks in variety. The quests are all the same and the crafting system/economy are a joke. Not to mention they've further explored the route of WarCraft3, in fact i think they recycled the models in WarCraft3 for use in WoW. Most of what i hear from people who've maxed out their chars is, "it gets fun when you reach 60". That's a lot of work to only have fun when you reach level 60, right?

From one angle, I would agree with you. But from another one, youd hear the same complains about every MMORPG there ever has been. So the question is, if the game sucks, why is it being played? Ive heard mixed opionions. But most notably, Ive heard a lot of people say its "fun". So if many people think its fun, and they are paying for it, how can we say its overhyped piece of repetitive garbage with a joke of an economy system? Especially from you, whom I read from here, have not played WoW?

I find it hard to believe you didn't hear any hype regarding WoW. Even for someone who doesn't play MMOs.

Overzealous WoW haters? Check
LEEEEROOOY JEEEEENKIIIINS? Check
Youtube vids? Check
A few articles on WoW addicts? Check
Pure Pwnage WoW bashing episodes? Check
Articles and commercials, aswell as posts saying that WoW is amazingly awesome and best there is? No check

So how can the game be overhyped (misleading and overdramatising publicity)?

The source for my claim? Go to your local shop and count how many FPS titles there are compared to RTS titles.

My local shops are filled with all kinds of games, but my local shop wouldnt be a proper base for statistical info now, would it? Fact is, you dont know, so dont claim you do. The game market today is so mixed that, crap, one wouldnt even be able to tell what kind of genre is the most played. Especially when a whole boatload of console player tend to hate all FPS games for "their repetitiveness" and hate online playing for "it being infested with idiots" (not my quotes, I oppose such silly notions, but they are far more popular than youd think).

Will you get off the subject of it being a bad game, i never said it was a bad game, and i never said it was all hype. I said it's overhyped, and you'd be ignorant to turn your back on the role hype plays.

Overhyped means that the game is lackluster to whats promised. But now I realise that you probably werent really knowing what "hype" really is.

There's none of it on the net, are you serious? You overhyped WarCraft3 when you recommended it to the OP.

Explain to me, how does it work? How does recommending a game constitute as "overhyping"?

Ill help you a little.

5. exaggerated publicity; hoopla.
6. an ingenious or questionable claim, method, etc., used in advertising, promotion, or publicity to intensify the effect.
7. a swindle, deception, or trick.

So, does that mean that when you suggested RA2, you were overhyping the game?

So what good is your nostalgia to a person who has never played the game before?

I was being sarcastic, if you couldnt tell.

Aren't you yourself basing your opinion on emotional response to a game?

Which is why I dont take my emotions seriously. However, I prefer facts over emotions.

[nemesis908]

Released in 2002, and it was 3D. I personally think it looks cartoonish, and for that reason, I didnt play it until 2005. I refuse to play WC2 for the sole reason of it being just too cartoonish. Ignorant, you may say, but at the time I was deeply impressed with Warcraft: Orks vs Humans, and its exceptionally well executed dark and grim atmosphere. "Magic" and "Dark Magic" were serious business (with no sarcasm). WC2 was a completely different step, so was WC3. That being said, you cant deny that WC3 graphics are superior to SC. Modern, as a word, can be used loosely.

I would deny that the graphics are superior. The 2D sprites in StarCraft are much better looking than the 3D blocks in WarCraft3. It's like saying that Quake looks better than Duke Nukem; it's just not true. While Quake was indeed 3D, it was also an eyesore.

Both Star and WarCraft are exceptionally balanced. Thats what Ive liked about them. CnC is much less complex in that area. WarCraft3 is no less open for strategy as is StarCraft. I dont quite understand you, because on the macromanagement level, its pretty straightforward RTS- build bases, make units, move units, fight with units.

I would go as far to say that WarCraft3 is even less open to strategy than StarCraft. Which is my point; had WarCraft3 been made a few years earlier it might have been more worthy of praise.

Cool, I bring you examples of real life, and you discard them just because "you feel like it". I actually had a point there, and not too heavily hidden. The point is, bad games can sell a lot, but wont be played in a long run. Good games may sell well, but they will always be played, until they are hopelessly outdated or outmatched by newer games that offer competition. In that aspect, a "few examples" definitely apply to every other game there is.

You gave me some bad examples. I didn't hear much about Crysis' Multiplayer mode. I believe it was mostly hyped for its single player features and graphics. As for Halo3; it was an XBox 360 exclusive. Is it any wonder it's multiplayer is in decline? Especially with the fee that comes with playing on X-Box Live. I didn't hear much about ET:QW outside of these forums, and of course the ET:QWs forums. Most of that hype was player generated too, a lot of which was misconstrued information relayed to everyone. That's a large part of why ET:QW died.

Im curious to where you got those 90% from? Im not disputing the fact that majority of SC players are South Korean, just disputing your argumentation. StarCraft is popular in S. Korea because it gets media coverage because of its competitive play. Its played competitively, because it offers the best balance between micro/macro, aswell as best gameplay unit balance in the RTS market at the moment. But, its also extremely popular because it doesnt require a military grade PC to run. Which is the same reason you see CS1.6 being the most popular PC FPS game on multiplayer level. Its a great game, and it doesnt require resources. Competitive players, aswell as fans will probably go further, explaining how much skill CS1.6 requires over CSS (or in this case, how much skill StarCraft requires to be good at the game).

Oh my god, 90% is obviously an exaggeration due to the large amount of Koreans that play the game. I would go so far as to say they make up the largest majority of people who play the game by a landslide.

You seem to be saying that any publicity to a game means, that its "overhyped". StarCraft is not the best game there is, but the fact that its one of the most played games right now says, that people are enjoying it for a reason. Not because of its hype. You BUY the game because its hyped, you dont PLAY it. Unless youre a massohistic bastard with a fetish for misery. :laugh:

Lol, how am i saying that? All games get publicity in varying degrees. You don't seem to be able to grasp what i'm saying.

Basically, games like HALO3 sell millions and millions of copies, are played off the bat by hundreds of thousands, and when the smoke clears, its played by a far smaller group of people. Thats how overhyped games fare. Games that are still played, can not be considered overhyped because "overhyped" as a word means the game had too much publicity that it doesnt meet. SC and WC3 do meet what they promise, a well balanced RTS.

I'm of the opinion that Halo3 wasn't designed for longevity. The games' marketing may not have been overhyped, but if you're discussing RTS titles with a group of WarCraft3 fanboys, you're likely to hear things like "WarCraft 3 is the best RTS ever!". Which is an example of overhype.

One of my friends has an APM of 300 in WarCraft3, StarCraft professional players go somewhere between 200 and 250. From my own experience, I would agree, that its clumsier, but APM pretty much says that SC3 as a whole demands more from the player, than SC.

I don't even know what APM is. Well i dont know it can stand for Anti-Personel Mine. And what's SC3? Unless you meant WarCraft3?

Indeed, its cool that it works like that, but CnC is pretty much amassing the strongest units and throwing it at the enemy. Theres little to no micromanagement necessary unless were talking about competitive games, whereas in StarCraft, most units require micromanagement to sustain either their edge over other units, or become superior to superior units. This is how SC is superior to CnC (indepth), micromanagement plays a huge role, just as huge as macromanagement and the balance between the two. CnC and TA both pretty much focus more on macromanagement, and TA does so more apparently than all oher RTS games. The demo of the rounds in SC, compared to RA2 (just for example) show exactly what I mean. SC is built around "rock paper scissor" balance from toe to tip. CnC is more brutal, crude.

You can argue about my opinion, but you cant argue the facts. And the fact is WCG.

You see that's where you're wrong. If you played C&C Red Alert 2, the last thing you would see is people amassing the strongest units and sending them to the enemy base, that's a lesson i soon learned playing it online. Exactly the same qualities you applied to StarCraft apply to Red Alert 2. Why would it require any less?

Check google, what WCG is. Its not popularity were talking about. People want StarCraft into WCG program because as an RTS, its the best there is for competition, at least those people think that way. You say "hype", I say "theres a reason".

The reason is that it's been more readily accessable to players due to Blizzards support. Something other developers haven't supplied to the same degree in other games until recently.

Oh, its easy. You see, when I suggest StarCraft or WarCraft, you say Im overhyping the game (but in all seriousness, Im just suggesting), and then you yourself suggest StarCraft and a bunch of other games, which makes your suggestions no different from mine, and I dont think you have the objectivity to admit that by your own standards, youre overhyping the games yourself.

I'm not overhyping the games, i don't mention one of them as being "the best", like you do in mentioning WarCraft3. That's the difference.

As for your difference, its really as factual as your other claims. I see more hype surrounding CnC games, than SC/WC3 games. SC2 "promo" has so far consisted of a few threads in gaming forums, and a few Youtube.com videos. CnC: Tiberium Wars promo was literally, everywhere.

It's still early days for StarCraft2. But that's beside the point, i rarely saw any Tiberium Wars promos.

But wheres the hype? Hype is "exaggerated publicity". Where was hype in my suggestion? And therss literally no "hype" surrounding SC today, nor is there any hype surrounding WC3. So you really have no ground.

Of course the forever lasting StarCraft and WarCraft 3 (with their expansion packs), if youre interested in seeing how the best RTS games play out (minimalistic, yet flawless).

That right there, is hype. You're suggesting that it's the best.

Theres a difference between "successful" and "successful" is that overhyped games (exaggerated publicity, lets talk factually, and not based on our emotions) arent played in the long run. I gave you factual examples of overpublicised games losing its playerbase. You have yet to show me an overpublicised game not losing its playerbase. Monetary success does not mean the game will be played in the long run.

Youll use WoW as an example, but WoW really delivers what a MMORPG player wants, and I dont see it being publicised or praised as the BEST MMO EVAR!

Ergo, no hype per se.

I beg to differ as an MMORPG player, WoW does not deliver what an MMORPG player wants. An MMORPG player wants something similar to SWG pre NCU/CU. An economy that works, highly customisable avatars, crafting skills that aren't broken, customisable professions, stackable skills, in-depth quests, player accomodations, customisable weapons and armours.

WoW doesn't hype itself as the best MMORPG ever (because it isn't), but it doesnt need to. WoW has enough hype off of the back of other Blizzard games. And just look at the recent TV ads for it. "Cool" celebrities claiming to have avatars in-game and exaggerating the gameplay.

From one angle, I would agree with you. But from another one, youd hear the same complains about every MMORPG there ever has been. So the question is, if the game sucks, why is it being played? Ive heard mixed opionions. But most notably, Ive heard a lot of people say its "fun". So if many people think its fun, and they are paying for it, how can we say its overhyped piece of repetitive garbage with a joke of an economy system? Especially from you, whom I read from here, have not played WoW?


Overzealous WoW haters? Check
LEEEEROOOY JEEEEENKIIIINS? Check
Youtube vids? Check
A few articles on WoW addicts? Check
Pure Pwnage WoW bashing episodes? Check
Articles and commercials, aswell as posts saying that WoW is amazingly awesome and best there is? No check

So how can the game be overhyped (misleading and overdramatising publicity)?

Quite frankly, that's not true. SWG wasn't overhyped, that's not to say there wasn't hype about it. The same can be said for Everquest 2.

Also, most hype comes from a games userbase, not from advertisements and articles.

My local shops are filled with all kinds of games, but my local shop wouldnt be a proper base for statistical info now, would it? Fact is, you dont know, so dont claim you do. The game market today is so mixed that, crap, one wouldnt even be able to tell what kind of genre is the most played. Especially when a whole boatload of console player tend to hate all FPS games for "their repetitiveness" and hate online playing for "it being infested with idiots" (not my quotes, I oppose such silly notions, but they are far more popular than youd think).

Of course your shop would be a place for accurate statistical information. Do you think shops just pick a random selection of games and stick them on their shelves? Fact is, i do know through simple observation, but you don't want to.

They may be popular, but they aren't exactly swamping the shelves with RTS' now are they? I'm willing to bet that what they would prefer are more RPG based games, not RTS'.

Overhyped means that the game is lackluster to whats promised. But now I realise that you probably werent really knowing what "hype" really is.

Actually i'm well aware of what hype is, i'm just not limited to thinking that hype is solely what's produced by the games' marketing team.

Explain to me, how does it work? How does recommending a game constitute as "overhyping"?

Ill help you a little.

5. exaggerated publicity; hoopla.
6. an ingenious or questionable claim, method, etc., used in advertising, promotion, or publicity to intensify the effect.
7. a swindle, deception, or trick.

So, does that mean that when you suggested RA2, you were overhyping the game?

When i suggested Red Alert 2, that's all i did. I didn't distinguish between the games in order of preference or refer to any individually as "the best".

I was being sarcastic, if you couldnt tell.

Based on what you've said so far i was willing to believe that's exactly what you thought.

Which is why I dont take my emotions seriously. However, I prefer facts over emotions.

My emotions aren't forming my opinions of a game, my opinions are forming my emotions. All you're doing is repeating other people's collective opinions onto me. While a lot of what you say is correct, you're merely trying to avoid the truth in what i say.

[Chris_Redfield]

I would deny that the graphics are superior. The 2D sprites in StarCraft are much better looking than the 3D blocks in WarCraft3.

[media]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c9/Warcraft_3_Humans_fight_Orcs_screenshot.jpg[/media]

[media]http://www.pcguru.hu/pcguru/img/leirasok/starcraft.jpg[/media]

Yeah, they sure are . I mean, I cant even see past all those blocks.

I would go as far to say that WarCraft3 is even less open to strategy than StarCraft. Which is my point; had WarCraft3 been made a few years earlier it might have been more worthy of praise.

Im still not quite getting how is WC3 "less open to strategy" than SC, when they play out almost exactly the same on macromanagement level, which essentially is the "strategy" part of an RTS.

You gave me some bad examples. I didn't hear much about Crysis' Multiplayer mode. I believe it was mostly hyped for its single player features and graphics. As for Halo3; it was an XBox 360 exclusive. Is it any wonder it's multiplayer is in decline? Especially with the fee that comes with playing on X-Box Live. I didn't hear much about ET:QW outside of these forums, and of course the ET:QWs forums. Most of that hype was player generated too, a lot of which was misconstrued information relayed to everyone. That's a large part of why ET:QW died.

I gave you examples of the leastest big games. Youre trying to argue facts, based on your emotions or inability to accept said facts. Crysis, although never meant to blow the market as an MP game, has its MP player base cut from 3000 to 1000. ETQW, a solely MP game, praised in every FPS forum as a competitive players FPS refuge (Total network forums and pretty much in all FPS clan forums in one way or another), cut from 15000 to 1000. HALO3 Ive already mentioned. And your view on XBL being to blame for HALO3s downfall is crudely inaccurate, since theres no decline in XBL users (AKA, people who want to pay for a network service for their console). As for hype around ETQW, player generated or not, hype is hype. ETQW truly died because it didnt meet the hype.

Oh my god, 90% is obviously an exaggeration due to the large amount of Koreans that play the game. I would go so far as to say they make up the largest majority of people who play the game by a landslide.

Its cool. You pull a number out of thin air, and when called out, act as if its common sense that you "exaggerated". Dont act so surprised when people recognise that youre obviously wrong.

Lol, how am i saying that? All games get publicity in varying degrees. You don't seem to be able to grasp what i'm saying.

So, if all games receive pubilicity in varying degrees, how come you get to say which of them are overhyped or not (since youre obviously giving out your opinion as a fact)? Overhyped would literally mean that a game does not offer what its supposed to be offering. If its being mentioned everywhere, it could be really just effective publishing and not hype per se. And yes, you can own a game and dislike it, which is why Im inclined to believe that you just want a more solid and acceptable reason for your general dislike towards both of the games under discussion. Considering that youre having a hard time coming up wih "facts", Id say Im not that far off the mark. And if I truly wasnt able to grasp what you were saying, you should have been correcting me. But since youre not, its obvious you simply lack arguments and want to mask it with a subtle insult.

I'm of the opinion that Halo3 wasn't designed for longevity. The games' marketing may not have been overhyped, but if you're discussing RTS titles with a group of WarCraft3 fanboys, you're likely to hear things like "WarCraft 3 is the best RTS ever!". Which is an example of overhype.

If thats your opinion, you should check through HALO3 Multiplayer reviews and what it offers, before you actually form your opinion on thin air. HALO3 as a whole game (except for the story) is lacking, but its MP is designed to be to last as any of todays MPs are. And seriously, what are you expecting if youre talking to WC3 fanboys? Anything less than talking to CnC fanboys? By the end of the day, they all can justify why their respective games are the best (to them), which is why broader statistics come to aid. But thats not the point. The point is that bad games arent played and good games are, and youre trying to argue that and blame hype on that. Hype wont keep a game played on someones accound for hundreds of hours. Hype merely pushes the player to try it out.

I don't even know what APM is. Well i dont know it can stand for Anti-Personel Mine. And what's SC3? Unless you meant WarCraft3?

APM is "Actions Per Minute", if youre an RTS player, this is common sense, as this term came with StarCraft.

You see that's where you're wrong. If you played C&C Red Alert 2, the last thing you would see is people amassing the strongest units and sending them to the enemy base, that's a lesson i soon learned playing it online. Exactly the same qualities you applied to StarCraft apply to Red Alert 2. Why would it require any less?

Cool, I can amass Mammoth tanks and win the game. I can surround myself with Tesla coils and stay safe. Amassing units in RA2 was a safe way to win, if the unit was at least somewhat strong. In StarCraft, the only unit you could amass to win, was the Carrier. But I digress, my last Battlenet game was 3 years ago, and my last RA2 game was also somewhere there. The difference between the units was simple, in RA2, they were going from weakest to strongest in a ladder type of fashion, with a few specialized units you never got to actually use (didnt have to). In SC, you use pretty much every unit, and if youre not using them, chances are you or your opponent is doing something wrong.

Example, if you have your weakest units in SC, they are still of great use, and with micromanagement, they can seriously wreak havoc (hence the high APM, everything is very dependant on "micro"). In RA2, a weak unit was an unnecessary unit.

The reason is that it's been more readily accessable to players due to Blizzards support. Something other developers haven't supplied to the same degree in other games until recently.

Erm, what Blizzard support, and what accessibility. Youd think that with lack of developers support, BF2 wouldnt be played? Thats hardly it.

I'm not overhyping the games, i don't mention one of them as being "the best", like you do in mentioning WarCraft3. That's the difference.

I admit, it was an automatic reflex. But out of all RTS games, WC3 and SC are the least lacklustering, are the most played (and most popular), are WCG picks and offer great balance between micro/macro management, aswell as some really creative possibilities thanks to the rock/paper/scissor balance implemented (in StarCraft most notably). Theres a reason why those games are what they are "today". And you putting them down for "hype", is as wrong as me putting them up as "the best". Difference is, statistics favour me.

It's still early days for StarCraft2. But that's beside the point, i rarely saw any Tiberium Wars promos.

So you were not using the Internet? It was pretty much everywhere.

That right there, is hype. You're suggesting that it's the best.

I admit, I based that statement off an automated response. But hype? Those two are the worlds most played RTS games. So its somewhat backed up by a lot more people than just me, the majority of one.

I beg to differ as an MMORPG player, WoW does not deliver what an MMORPG player wants. An MMORPG player wants something similar to SWG pre NCU/CU. An economy that works, highly customisable avatars, crafting skills that aren't broken, customisable professions, stackable skills, in-depth quests, player accomodations, customisable weapons and armours.

Its amusing, as a lot, a huge lot of WoW players are indeed new to the game. Which means that they, as MMORPG players, have no idea what they want, but they are enjoying WoW. So whos on the wrong? You thinking that they are being foolish for being suckered in by hype? Or they, thinking that WoW might actually be fun?

WoW doesn't hype itself as the best MMORPG ever (because it isn't), but it doesnt need to. WoW has enough hype off of the back of other Blizzard games. And just look at the recent TV ads for it. "Cool" celebrities claiming to have avatars in-game and exaggerating the gameplay.

Youre once again using the word "hype" in a wrong context. What false advertising could other Blizzard games provide to make WoW be popular? Theres a 15 day tryout for anyone to see if theyll like it. People choose to pay. Are people wrong? If the game works, then its good enough.

Also, most hype comes from a games userbase, not from advertisements and articles.

True, but then again that hype is easily balanced by the negative hype.

Of course your shop would be a place for accurate statistical information. Do you think shops just pick a random selection of games and stick them on their shelves? Fact is, i do know through simple observation, but you don't want to.

My local shop has more action and adventure games, than FPS shooters or RTS games. My local shop doesnt even have BF2. No. My random shop near my random home isnt a place for accurate statistical information.

Actually i'm well aware of what hype is, i'm just not limited to thinking that hype is solely what's produced by the games' marketing team.

Whos saying anything about "just" the marketing team? Youre thinking hype is any kind of positive praise that you tend to disagree with. At least you come off that way.

Based on what you've said so far i was willing to believe that's exactly what you thought.

Wait... yeah, and 90% of all SC players are Koreans.

While a lot of what you say is correct, you're merely trying to avoid the truth in what i say.

And the truth is?

Is this another attempt to hide the fact that you cant come up with anything conclusive or factual as to think why SC/WC arent good "enough" for you? You use the term "hype" very loosely to support your baseless arguments, state your opinions as facts. Come up with completely random statistical figures (like RTS being less popular on a game shop shelf than FPS, or that 90% of SC players are Koreans) to support your "case"? You cling on the term hype, and when asked how exactly do the games not live up to the "overblown, inaccurate marketing or public opinion", you come up with your own opinion to counter it. Look back to where it started. Youre basically trying to prove to me, or anyone else in this thread, that WC3 is an overhyped POS that shouldnt even be suggested to anyone.

Haha... "the truth is". You use that word in your sentence like you did, without any following argument, then you know youre full of BS. :laugh: