If they wanted to save PC Gaming...

well, i just gave an example, and what i was trying to get at is i would not want each player to have 100's of units. the best idea i could give you is world in conflict. you never had the chance to get over 15 tanks or helos or infantry squads at a time. it would be something close to that.

 

I have finished it quite a few times, so no, I am not a noob. The point is that if you try to categorize all 4 factions there is a very well drawn symmetry on all of them except (like you and I have mentioned) for 1 unit that does not have its counterpart with other factions, hence what I defined as a "unique faction unit". Each units have their abilities, some of them unique, but the point I was trying to assert is that with SC there is no such high level of symmetry to get balanced units.

I hope the above explanation was clear.

 

First, is an orc grunt really equivalent to a night elf archer, any more than a zealot is equivalent to a marine? Is a crypt fiend in any way analogous to a huntress, just because they're both infantry?

Second, night elves didn't have two casters; they had three (dryad, druid of the claw, druid of the talon). And the skills of each race's casters were completely different; it's not like each race has one damaging caster and one buffing caster, for example. This is no different, in my opinion, than pointing out that each race in Starcraft had casters (terrans had ghost and science vessel, etc). That doesn't mean that a ghost is equivalent to a zerg queen.

Third, you suggest that each faction had one flying unit. That's not true. Even before Frozen Throne, orcs had one (wind rider), humans had two (gyrocopter and gryphon rider), night elves had four (hippogryph, hippogryph ryder, chimera, druid of the talon), and the undead had two (gargoyle and frost wyrm).

Finally, frozen throne mixed this up even further. Where's the "symmetry" in giving humans the dragonhawk rider and night elves the mountain giant and the undead the obsidian statue? Sure, everybody got several new units, but it's not like they were comparable to the other race's in any way.

 

Maybe I implied something I never meant. WC3 factions is not like AoE civilizations where everything is almost the same save a couple of units and access to higher tiers of tech. But the differences in SC factions are broader than WC3. Let me elaborate with a few examples:
- In SC humans have nuclear attacks, a quite big difference to zergs or protoss; also they have bunkers.
- Similarly zergs have their own kamikazees, giving them some heavy anti-air advantage.

All I can say is that I've found far more differences between the 3 SC factions than in WC3 (I'll give the night elves units are a bit different, yet they fall on the same scheme), but definitely neither of them are like the all-same civs in AoE.

 

I got the sales info from several websites some time ago but the thought was EA was disappointed with the sales and there was talk EA would axe the series as a result which they later said they were committed to the series. I recently purchased Dead Space 2 for the PS3 because it comes with "Dead Space Extraction".

Wrt to scary games I scare easily so nuff said. But if you are not then try Clive Barker's "Undying" or "Jericho". He makes some scary/creepy games. Some have also found "System Shock 2" to be scary.

There was another game recently on the PC that's escapes my memory that was quite scary because you are hunted by demon spirits and you don't have any weapons so you basically have to flee without being killed.

 

Penumbra. Absolutely freaky.

 

I think Mitlov is making the better argument. Basically this is just not enough to make your point. Showing that SC is diverse doesn't help to explain whether or not it is more diverse than WC3.

Clearly, both blizzard RTS titles are similar to each other and quite different from AoE.

 

The one I was thinking of was Amnesia Dark Descent

 

yeah, that's their sequel (not strictly speaking).

 

I see so Penumbra was the first in the series followed by Amnesia Dark Descent?

 

I see so Penumbra was the first in the series followed by Amnesia Dark Descent?

 

yeah, it's more of a successor than direct sequel. Same type of thing, probably improved, but I haven't tried it.

 

Those games, while they seemed scary, never quite interested me. I like having the option to shoot or run. I really miss the original RE series, 1-3, because those managed to be actually scary. Once RE4 came out it turned into a survival game, instead of survival horror.

 

Amnesia really improved the concepts used in Penumbra (Overture and Black Plague), focusing more in the suspense and terror rather than action. I really recommend it.

 

To each its own. If most of the people think both games have a similar level of diversity, then fine. Regardless, both are excellent and enjoyable games.

 

Orcs have bunkers. Workers can garrison in their bunkers to protect the workers AND shoot arrows out. Only race that can do that. The food generator of every race is unique in WC3. Night elf food generators replenish health and mana of nearby units. Undead food generators can be configured into various types of defensive towers. Human food generators have no abilities, but are smaller and cheaper so they are better suited to wall construction.

A nuclear attack is analogous to, say, earthquake (the farseer spell). In your argument that the races are all equivalent in WC3, you're completely ignoring the issue of heroes, with unique abilities, spells, etc. These heroes take the place of some of the top-tier units in SC like the ghost, but they're no less race-specific than the ghost is.

The undead's banshees are kamikazes; they can kill themselves to possess an opponent (switch the unit's allegiance permanently). No other race in WC3 has anything remotely like that.

 

all shooting games are survival games. RE4 and onwards were more action shooter than anything else.

 

In survival horrors, guns tend to make the game less interesting. While the option to run is almost universal for these games, there's something to be said of a game that relies heavily on a player's problem solving abilities in areas other than shooting stuff.

While not a exactly horror, probably Mirror's Edge is the best example of this. They went as far as offering the gun in many cases, but whenever you used it it just felt wrong, as if there was a better way, and there always was.

 

I wouldn't agree with that, except on the most literal sense. There are games where your character is abandoned in the middle of a nightmare and you're trying to escape and get free (Dead Space). Then there are games where dying will of course end the mission, but the mission isn't all about just surviving a horror scenario you've been dropped into the middle of (Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, etc).

Though I think the difference is more one of atmosphere and plot than actual gameplay mechanics.

 

The literal sense was the exact sense to which I referred.