Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

personally i think warcraft is much better then starcraft but that may be because i am a much bigger fan of fantasy as opposed to futuristic

i gotta go with starcraft. warcraft is an rpg game while starcraft is a true rts. in warcraft ull have an army of 12 guys go each person's supply is so high, but in sc when u can create 2 things for a measly one supply, it really gives the player options to build whatever he or she wants

I say Warcraft, better story, better graphics, and more like LOTR, AND U DO GET TO HAVE MORE THE 12 GUYS, I always have about 25

well so-ry...in sc u get actual armies not little infiltration squads

Starcraft -
Warcraft -

There's more militial possibilities in Starcraft. The graphics aren't as detailed, leaving some extra space for 56k to go faster. Starcraft is more time efficient. Etc.. I can keep going.

Warcraft for sure. Starcraft was gay. Its too fast and not much strategy is needed. well just my opinion.

wc is spells for the most part. sc is actual fighting.

Not much strategy needed? What the ****? Have you ever played a game with the best? It's ALL about strategy. Here's my motto.

The best have a high APM rate. But having a high APM rate doesn't make you the best.

Warcraft was boring. No flavor.

This threads rating - 4

hey gotwa whats ur Bnet name again?

Vegeta(DL)x / Vegeta(DL)Bot

aight. im actually on BNet right now u wanna do UMS or somethin?

yeah if u wonderin im St.Allerdyce

I know. I already contacted you.

i hate both these games cause i hate strategy games for the most part but i'd say i hate starcraft the least, heh

i like starcraft better

aqua do u go on battlenet?

B.net all the way. SC for lyfe. D: Been playing since it's Day 2 release.

Blizzard > All

oh and someone said the sc story was terrible? guess what, you're right. but u dont play sc or wc for the one player campaigns. you do that to get good at the game. the longevity in both wc and sc exists in LAN or online gaming with other people, and vast choices of use map settings games.

Starcraft has the better style.

But Warcraft III is the better and more impressively designed and balanced game (which is saying something, considering the effort in SC balancing that was made). It also gives the casual player more scope for entertainment, unlike Starcraft which only attracted- certainly in long term- to hardcore RTS fans (though attracting very much, for sure!). The people who prefer SC are the hardcore dedicated fans who knew it inside out.

We'll see if Starcraft II- should it happen- is upped a factor in the design areas that made War III a better game from an objective point of view.

And I rather liked the storylines, even though they became predictable.

first off, war3 copies starcrafts story in nearly every way possible.

Main character falls to baddies... check
Main character becomes leader of the baddies... check
Game ends with baddies winning... check

anyways.. on to gameplay

war3 relies on creeping as your sortof 3rd economy tidbit, aside from gold and lumber. Also relying on hotkeys and speed. Most people dont like this as items and hero Lvl'ing are involved which brings down skill factor I suppose (at least thats the excuse Ive heard for people hating war3). Another complaint I hear about war3 is that people dont like how the micromanagement has more than tripled when compared to starcraft.

Starcraft just requires good knowledge of unit types and weaknesses, a fast hand for those hotkeys. Also maybe a bit of micromanagement, and you're set heh. People mostly prefer starcraft as no hero Lvling or item aquiring is involved, making the game more even for those who enjoy/dont enjoy rushing.


as for my opinion, I love em both I cant help it cuz both are a blast to play. star and war3 pwnz~

u think the zerg are the baddies? im not sure that in sc there are any good guys

Frozen Throne didn't really end with the baddies winning in the way Brood War did. Aside from anything else FT was a fight between two bad guys!

Besdies, Kerrigan never got much of a look in as a good guy, whilst Arthas the Nazi Paladin was great fun...

hell ya, FT ended with a wide open window, for a sequal(world of warcraft)

i like warcraft better on the single player but i liked starcraft better for multiplayer

Regardless, The undead were triumphant and pushed everyone out of the main lands. Thus... the baddies win. I knew arthas was evil the instant he became overly zealous with ridding the land of undead.

ask any hardened starcraft fan, they'll tell you war3's story is almost a complete ripoff, albiet a few details (characters, events etc.). For the most part the story is the same deal.

I must admit though, I enjoy the fantasy setting alot more heh

"It left with a wide open window for World of Warcraft"

-Wouldnt any developer do that? to have a franchise and not use it would truly be silly. Besides.. WoW was well known before TFT came out, so because of this there obviously had to be a cliffhanger at the end of tft

But you are still getting it all wrong.

The story in the Main Game is the same- bad guys turn up, bad guys wipe out established good guy empires, good guys unify and defeat bad guys main plan.

The bad guys cause a lot of havoc, create a new empire for themselves in what were once good guy lands, but do NOT win. They are defeated in the final mission. This is the same in both games.

At the end of Brood War, the Starcraft expansion set, the bad guys DO win and pretty much annihilate all opposition.

At the end of the Warcrat III expansion, no such thing happens. The good guys are still perfectly intact. All that happens is that one faction of bad guys fails to stop another faction of bad guys. All bad guy factions come out less powerful (Illidan loses, Arthas unifies with the Lich King but loses his Realm).

So there is NO plot in which bad guys win in Warcraft which is the same as Starcraft. Only the good guys winning plot from the original is the same. The other consistent things in the two series is that Blizzard loathes Humans and makes everything go wrong for them, fantasy or sci-fi, and an ex-human enbs up leading the bad guys.

I agree those two plots were similar but you said it all wrong in saying the 'bad guys winning' was the common link- quite the opposite. And the expansion plots are greatly diversed.

i found starcraft better
sure warcraft is more advance but
too complicated u have to level up ur hero
n ur production limit is half of that of starcraft

I thought it was like this :


Star : baddies pose a threat, at the end the good guys wipe them out (which was protoss right? I think)

War3 RoC : Undead start to pose a threat , all races come together to wipe them out

Star X : a new kind of baddies come, infest the hero and reign triumphant with her lead

War3 TFT : New baddies come (naga), but the hero ('arthas') was already under undead control in the original, so with his lead the undead became triumphant

I mean im just using major events, im not including the minor stuff, but I was sure thats how it went, and thats why it was similar :-/

Well, i loves Starcraft, but now it's very dated, it's hard to go back to after playing warcraft 3, because warcraft 3 has such a better production value, and the whole 'hero' engine of the game is awesome, it makes you want to go out and fight, rather then sitting around building an impregnable base. It is much more strategic and satisfying then starcraft.

IF all you do is build defenses in starcraft, you need to be horribly maimed.

I agree, and that's what makes WC so good, if you do that, your hero will be weak and you will lose because of that, so you're actually forced to get out there and fight.

thats what, imho, makes wc not as good as sc. as mentioned before, there are no heroes in sc, and thus all early units (when its most important) or more or less well-balanced...when you throw a hero into the mix, that kills the equilibrium. if you neglect to send your hero out early and instead try to tech, you're already dead. not the case in sc, because you can tech fast enough and get units built before a substantial attack against you has been built. and the point about an impregnible base? if you play multi-player for either series, there is no such thing. there is always an opening, and people find it, and you'll suffer for it. i think everyone has, at one point, learned this.

"I agree those two plots were similar but you said it all wrong in saying the 'bad guys winning' was the common link- quite the opposite. And the expansion plots are greatly diversed"


So basically you said I was right saying they were common, but then try to say that I was wrong saying it was the baddies, when in retrospect it was a major contributing factor that leads many people to think so....

but there is no strategy involved in simply building the largest amount of units possible and rushing the oponent as soon as possible. In warcraft, you're forced to learn each map, and learn where the AI controlled baddies are, so you can level up your hero, plus you have to still tech fast and keep you're army up to date. It's alot more challenging.

Not a fair comparison. Warcraft II was weak compared to Starcraft. But then Warcraft 3 came out and i think that game dwarfs Starcraft. If they made a more modern Starcraft then i think it would be a more difficult decision. And Starcraft Ghost isn't the same genre as War 3 so i don't know when a fair comparison will be able to be made.

BackFire, you'll excuse if I respectfully disagree... i believe you misread what i said. What I am saying is that many people (or at least many people that I know) find the hero system to be a substitute for strategy; and nowhere in my post did I say that building tons of units is a good strategy. You'll find people in sc and wc that will mass only one type of unit, and this is will lead them on the road to defeat. and Link...we are talking about Wc3. No one has mention wc2 or ghost. dont bother bringing them up.

just making a point spear boy...War3 trounces Starcraft. Sorry if you get butt hurt because someone doesn't think Starcraft is better than a War3. Now how about you run along and don't bother commenting to me...

How bout you stay on subject here? We're talking about wc3 and sc. not wc2 and ghost.

how about you do as i told you and not comment to me? Like i said in BOTH of my previous threads...War3 is better than Starcraft.

nice to hear it...why dont you listen to what i said and stay on topic?

heh, theres no need to get serious over this guys. They're both best sellers. Im pretty sure everyone who owns war3 owns or has owned starcraft at some point or another. nothing is factual here.

Again....War3 better than Starcraft. I don't know how to make it anymore apparent that I AM staying on topic.

Beforehand you weren't...w/e. I'm beyond caring.

as am i