Whoa! 20 years of blizzard!

Started by Callie Del Noire, February 11, 2011, 09:53:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shjade

Quote from: mystictiger on February 17, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
What I liked about the DoW2 / CoH approach was that the tactical element became important. When you have limited troops and no bases to fall back on, it became important to feint and use terrain rather than just churn out units and structures. I've not played WC3 as  was put off by WC1 and 2's obsession with civil engineering.
From the sound of that I think you'd actually like WC3 more than 1/2. It's less about having a huge base and more about hero management from what I've seen of high-level play. I was never much into competitive RTS play myself - I'm too slow.

In other words, it's more like DoW2 than WC2 in many respects. You still have bases and need to expand to new gold mines to keep your income churning, but the heart of the army is upgrading and keeping alive one or two key hero units and using them to decimate the opposition.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Inkidu

You know, Now that I think about it I wonder if Blizzard can even make a game that's not a hack-n-slash or a RTS?
MMORPGS are just hack-n-slashers with lots of people.

I don't think I've ever seen them make anything different since 3D graphics became in vogue. They tried Starcraft Ghost that was supposed to be a FPS right? But it got canceled.

I bet this was the meeting.

"Well Ghost is done and the focus groups say it's the best FPS to ever be created, but we've run into some troubling data."
"What?"
"Apparently people can play it for only minutes at a time and then put it down and walk outside."
"Burn it! Burn it in fire! Blame it on some lame money issues."
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.