[waterbuck]

I have about $30-40 to spend on games. I picked up Warcraft 3 battle chest to play on my machine (Powerbook G4 667 MHz with what I think is an ATI Rage 32 MB VRAM video chip in it, and 660 or RAM overall).

I have not loaded it and found myself wondering what you folks would recommend. I remember playing a Starcraft demo some years ago. It was fairly interesting, but it was on an old G3 Powerbook and could probably have been a lot more fun on a newer machine.

How do Warcraft 3 (with the frozen throne expansion), Starcraft (with whatever expansions) and Diablo 2 compare?

Is there something else you think is cool? I don't seem to do well with first person shooters , however,cause the video somehow makes me nauseated...

thanks

[Turnpike]

a lot of people prefer SC to WC3... I'm not one of them, but it is mostly a difference of opinion. I prefer the WC universe, and WC3 is a newer game so the graphics are obviously going to be better.

Diablo 2 is another genre entirely. If you've ever played the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games, or Champions of Norrath, or anything else in the hack'n'slash genre, you probably know a bit what D2 is like. There is no better hack'n'slash game in the world than D2. Most of the others come off as rip-offs, actually... poor ones. The graphics are dated (not horribly, but noticeably), but the gameplay has still yet to be matched.

You perhaps have guessed that I will recommend D2. However, this is because I'm not really the competitive type. I lack the skill/desire to really get into WC3 competetively over Battle.net. D2 has a co-operative aspect on Battle.net (although there is a competitive component if you choose that route), where WC3, even in team games, requires you to compete with others. I'm not good enough to do this well

Single player WC3 is quite amazing though, and I really loved playing through it. Unfortunately, all good quests must come to an end. Single-player D2 isn't so limited, though, because there are 7 different characters to use, all with many different sub-classes you can create for yourself as your character evolves, so it has much better single player replay value.

Overall, I think it comes down to which genre you prefer: RTS or RPG/adventure. I prefer the latter, and that is my recommendation. If you can get them all, do it... I doubt you would regret any of them, unless you simply didn't play SC or WC3 because you didn't want two RTS games.


btw, D2 battle chest comes with D1 and the D2 expansion. Definitely the way to go if you choose D2.



As for other games... there are lots of good games, but I think WC3 and D2 are the only games I can really lose myself in... and I mean really. Hours out of my day for weeks straight. Horrible addiction...

[Bookie]

You can't lose with any of the three, and they should all run great on that powerbook. I love Diablo 2, for sheer easy fun. Warcraft 3 is much harder, but I agree that the Warcraft universe is Blizzard's best achievement IMO. Starcraft is amazing for the balance of the 3 entirely different races. I also find it more than challenging to my slow mind, but it is a great game. Get them all, and you'll be busy most of next year ;-)

BTW, I used to have the very same PowerBook, and that's a Radeon 7500 you have in there.

[Skip Breakfast]

A lot of people dislike the inclusion of heroes in WC3, but I like them.

[Lateralus]

I agree that any game with Blizzard's name on it will be well worth your money. But for me, StarCraft has proven to be the best money I have ever spent on any piece of software. Picked up the Battle Chest three or four years ago for about $20 and still play it regularly, not to mention the running obsession I had with it in the months after I bought it.

Can't say the same for WarCraft III though, which cost me 2.5x more than the StarCraft Battle Chest did and which I stopped playing entirely after about a week. Not to say it is a bad game, just not what I had been hoping for having been such a big fan of WarCrafts I and II.

[waterbuck]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
I agree that any game with Blizzard's name on it will be well worth your money. But for me, StarCraft has proven to be the best money I have ever spent on any piece of software. Picked up the Battle Chest three or four years ago for about $20 and still play it regularly, not to mention the running obsession I had with it in the months after I bought it.

Can't say the same for WarCraft III though, which cost me 2.5x more than the StarCraft Battle Chest did and which I stopped playing entirely after about a week. Not to say it is a bad game, just not what I had been hoping for having been such a big fan of WarCrafts I and II.

what made starcraft better for you?

[Lateralus]

In my opinion, StarCraft is much more strategy based than WarCraft III is. With WarCraft III, it seems to me as if Blizzard couldn't decide if they wanted to make an RTS or an RPG, so they tried to combine them and... it just didn't come out as the kind of game I had been hoping for.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
In my opinion, StarCraft is much more strategy based than WarCraft III is. With WarCraft III, it seems to me as if Blizzard couldn't decide if they wanted to make an RTS or an RPG, so they tried to combine them and... it just didn't come out as the kind of game I had been hoping for.

Funny, I see it the other way around... In all the Starcraft multiplayer games I play its usually the guy with the most troops that win!

I prefer Warcraft too!

[boy8cookie]

I have all 3, but my favorite is diablo 2. Last summer I Played diablo 2 almost 24hrs a day all summer. Diablo 2 kind of requires a good friend or two to be on with you if you want to enjoy the full experience, never trust anyone unless you know them in real life so you can kick their ass when they scam you. People are out right greedy and will do anything to scam you.

Warcraft 3 or sc are also as fun. Having a friend on is not a necesity but is fun too. Friends are less competitive then other people may be, and also they may be about the same skill level as you.

Really, it depends on what type of game you like and what kind of youu like to play and what type of game you're looking to play. I prefer the "interactive" play of diablo 2, even if those little scamming bastards are out to get anything and everything they can from the nubs.

[Drakino]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
In my opinion, StarCraft is much more strategy based than WarCraft III is. With WarCraft III, it seems to me as if Blizzard couldn't decide if they wanted to make an RTS or an RPG, so they tried to combine them and... it just didn't come out as the kind of game I had been hoping for.

Ironicially, this is very true. The heroes are the only component to survive, but when it was first shown, it was way more RPG geared. You had a fixed camera, controlled the hero that in turn controlled a few units, and the game was never going to stop to load, it just would have been a big adventure across dynamically loaded maps.

Mor info is here.

Blizzard often backs away from trying to be really innovative these days due to their policy of shipping only incredible games. They bowed out of the adventure market even before entering it fully due to competitors using 3d technology in games that didn't even ship near when Warcraft Adventures would have.

[11011001]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch:
Funny, I see it the other way around... In all the Starcraft multiplayer games I play its usually the guy with the most troops that win!

I prefer Warcraft too!

Usually, except when one uses their 'magic' units well..

for example, if you are protoss, and someone is terran..

they attack with BCs.
- if you use maelstorm, you can dessimate their fleet with not that many dark archons.. while the rest of your army can be busy attacking them

But, ya, i agree, in a lot of cases, it becomes a matter of who can produce units the fastest.

That's why the tournament maps are fun. You can't really mass, because you have limited minerals. It's totally different from all the money maps.

[TheDeathman]

Warcraft 3 or Starcraft

War 3 is fun because units actually mean something to you since some cannot be produced as quick as other. An example would be a Grunt(Orc starting melee) if you want to win early game you will heal grunts and micromanage your army(Pulling out weak ones so the ones with full health take the hits). In starcraft you dont really go out of your way to save anything except your high end air units. But then for that Starcraft is fun because although its usually simply massing units it's fun to watch two giant armies clash in the middle of a map or at an expansion.

As for Diablo II, if you've never played it, it is still something to get although now since I've beaten it quite a few times and had many high level characters I really don't enjoy playing it since its nothing new. The quests get quite repetitive and if you want a high level charcter you will play all 3 diffuculties repeating the same quests in each one. Meh, it's fun for a while, if you've never had it get it.

[/rant]

[Marid]

Originally posted by 11011001:
That's why the tournament maps are fun. You can't really mass, because you have limited minerals. It's totally different from all the money maps. [/B]

Yeah, the money maps really made me lose interest in SC online. I played the single player campaigns twice through. Some are quite difficult.

Of the three games I would say SC was the most fun for me. I recenlty picked up the expansion for Warcraft3 and it is pretty fun, but doesn't compete with Broodwar.

Diablo2 is fun for awhile too. You can't really go wrong with Blizzard.

[Marid]

Originally posted by 11011001:
That's why the tournament maps are fun. You can't really mass, because you have limited minerals. It's totally different from all the money maps. [/B]

Yeah, the money maps really made me lose interest in SC online. I played the single player campaigns twice through. Some are quite difficult.

Of the three games I would say SC was the most fun for me. I recenlty picked up the expansion for Warcraft3 and it is pretty fun, but doesn't compete with SC:Broodwar.

Diablo2 is fun for awhile too. You can't really go wrong with Blizzard.

[Turnpike]

As far as heroes being the only thing that matters in war 3... they are certainly a big part, but not the only part. Certainly a level 10 TC can tank an entire army of non-heroes, but it is a natural part of the game... since by that time your opponent probably has either a level 9/10 hero or two in the 6-7 range.

It is true that you won't be able to win without a hero (unless your opponent flubs up majorly and repeatedly) but the game isn't just about who can level their hero faster or use them better.

More than anything, it is a game of countering... you scout, find out who your enemy is, where they are, and what they are building, and you build what you can to counter them and build infrastructure to support whatever you'll need to counter what they will counter you with.

[Beewee]

Starcraft will always be my personal fav, bar-none!
Warcraft 3 I found to be too "rock-paper-scissors" based, the armor system, anyone who has played the game knows what I mean.

And diablo 2 would have been more enjoyable if the damn expansion didn't lag so freaking much. How much video RAM or processor power do you need to play that game?

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Drakino:
Ironicially, this is very true. The heroes are the only component to survive, but when it was first shown, it was way more RPG geared. You had a fixed camera, controlled the hero that in turn controlled a few units, and the game was never going to stop to load, it just would have been a big adventure across dynamically loaded maps.

Mor info is here.

Blizzard often backs away from trying to be really innovative these days due to their policy of shipping only incredible games. They bowed out of the adventure market even before entering it fully due to competitors using 3d technology in games that didn't even ship near when Warcraft Adventures would have.

That really sucks. It could have been an awesome game, like an offline WoW :'(

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Starcraft will always be my personal fav, bar-none!
Warcraft 3 I found to be too "rock-paper-scissors" based, the armor system, anyone who has played the game knows what I mean.

And diablo 2 would have been more enjoyable if the damn expansion didn't lag so freaking much. How much video RAM or processor power do you need to play that game?

You've got to be kidding me, I have friends playing that game on 8-year-old computers. The expansion runs fine on my roomie's Pentium 200 with a plain 'ol 2d 2MB video card. Played fine on my old PowerCenter (225MHz 604e) with a 12MB Voodoo2.

-Jon

[waterbuck]

Well for what it's worth, as the person who started the discussion,Warcraft3 is proving pretty fun. It is basically real-time strategy "enhanced" by hero characters. Definitely not a full fledged role-playing game, but the hero, at least the human one I am dealing with now, has enough plot and unique capacities that he becomes kind of central to the way the player experiences and thinks about the game.

I could see where a kid with very fast moving hands and intense focus could just jam on Starcraft, build up the giant army faster than anyone else, and frankly would not wish for or need a hero, and such aplayer might even dislike the limits on the size of the army you can build in Warcraft (food-limitations kind of set in around 80 or 90 units). Given that my wrists are slow and my time for the game itself somewhat limited, a plot-enriched, small army strategy game is really pretty enjoyable.

So for folks like me Warcraft 3 is fine. So far it plays well on my TiBook 667 MHz with 680 RAM

[Turnpike]

Originally posted by Beewee:
And diablo 2 would have been more enjoyable if the damn expansion didn't lag so freaking much. How much video RAM or processor power do you need to play that game?

Hold option as you start D2. Change video mode to software.

This problem didn't come with the expansion so much as it came with OS X. In OS 9, Open GL mode works great... in X, you need to be using software mode. It ran just fine on my Sawtooth 400, as long as I used software mode (although with a couple zoomancers it would lag, or when rendering 3 meteors and 3 blizzards thanks to mass sorcs in Baal runs or something.)

[boy8cookie]

Hold option as you start D2. Change video mode to software.

This problem didn't come with the expansion so much as it came with OS X. In OS 9, Open GL mode works great... in X, you need to be using software mode. It ran just fine on my Sawtooth 400, as long as I used software mode (although with a couple zoomancers it would lag, or when rendering 3 meteors and 3 blizzards thanks to mass sorcs in Baal runs or something.)

Hmmmm, intresting I'll have to try this as well. I usually play on my iBook (G3 900mHz 640ram) at school and there is a fair bit of lag. My zoomancer has an enigma to teleport around with but its almost impossible. Is a sawtooth 400 a G4 or G3? I was hoping to play this with a little less lag after buying 512 ram for my iBook -.- but its the same result pretty much.

[Turnpike]

Sawtooth is a very early G4... the only previous G4 used a motherboard from the blue/white G3s.

G4/G3 shouldn't matter with D2, though.

With my sawtooth, I would do just fine as a zoomancer... not quite as fine with somebody else as a zoomancer (might have been my connection).. the real problem was when there were a lot of effects happening at once (lots of spells still on the screen)... skeleton magi slow things down a lot, too, if massed... because they each have their own spell bolts flying...



but yeah, software mode works wonders. the game was nearly unplayable under OS X in Open GL mode.

[boy8cookie]

Holy that does wondes My zoomancer can tele like a mofo now WOOT WOOT! Thanks for the great tip. My friend used a auto aim with meteor and it didnt lag at all either, so nice.

[boy8cookie]

Originally posted by boy8cookie:
Holy that does wonders My zoomancer can tele like a mofo now WOOT WOOT! Thanks for the great tip. My friend used a auto aim with meteor and it didnt lag at all either, so nice.