Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
War3 vs SC2
- Thread starter mark28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't played much Warcraft 3 (just the demo), but I've played Warcraft 2, Starcraft, and Starcraft 2. My favourite by far is Starcraft 2. I know I'm going to be shot for this, but I thought even graphics aside, Starcraft 2 is better than the original Starcraft. ie. I found the original Starcraft missions very repetitive, ie. almost all of them were just crushing enemy bases. The SC2 campaign I found to be extremely varied, and fun. The out-of-game upgrade system for units is cool, and there are just so many different units in the game. I think it's worth buying on single player alone. I can't wait for the expansion packs to be released.
Although many of the cut-scenes are definitely cringe-worthy.
Although many of the cut-scenes are definitely cringe-worthy.
I should have asked you what kind of computer you have. I wouldn't recommend SC2 for anything less than a 8600M GT graphics card (what I have), and even then, would recommend running it in Boot Camp.
If you have something weaker (ie. integrated graphics) I would suggest either upgrading, or getting WC3 cheap from somewhere.
If you have something weaker (ie. integrated graphics) I would suggest either upgrading, or getting WC3 cheap from somewhere.
I forgot to mention that multiplayer is probably the only thing I play. Is the multiplayer of SC 2 better than that of War3 + Frozen Throne?
I have the 15" 2010 MBP. It plays SC 2 perfectly in Windows ( demo'ed it ). Since I got about 30-60 fps at 1680 x 1050 with everything on high, it should be fine for OS X I guess?
But gameplay is most important to me. If the multplayer of SC 2 is much better than War 3 + Frozen throne, I don't even care about running it on Low if I have too ( which is not the case ).
As I said, I haven't played WC3 outside the demo (a long time ago) and so can't judge.
If you don't care about graphics, you could just buy a copy of the original Starcraft + Brood War for pretty much nothing, and go nuts...
And yes, it will run SC2 fine in OSX, but not as well as Windows. I would expect you'll have to knock a few of the settings to medium to get smooth gameplay in big battles.
If you don't care about graphics, you could just buy a copy of the original Starcraft + Brood War for pretty much nothing, and go nuts...
And yes, it will run SC2 fine in OSX, but not as well as Windows. I would expect you'll have to knock a few of the settings to medium to get smooth gameplay in big battles.
I've played both extensively. Single player wise, SC2 is better by a fair margin. Multiplayer wise, they're both good and it's hard to pick one -- right now I'm just playing SC2 MP, but that's more because it's new than anything else -- WC3 has a good deal more variety than SC2 due to heroes.
WC3's multiplayer is more rush/micromanagement centered. Do you like bigger armies or smaller, micro-centric forces.
I never could get into WC3 due to the amount of hero/caster micro required to be competitive.
I never could get into WC3 due to the amount of hero/caster micro required to be competitive.
I vote for Warcraft 3. I have both but enjoy WC3 more. And yes the multiplayer is more intense. You don't just mass and attack. You need to have much more strategy to win a game especially in 2v2.
Warcraft 3 in a truly excellent game, I've played every single Warcraft (except WoW), and I have to say that it can be addicting / exciting / and sometimes frustrating.
I've played Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 1 : Brood War - also a truly excellent game. However, I have not played Starcraft 2 so I can't exactly speak on behalf of both games, but, however, I would recommend Starcraft 2 as it is most likely more popular than Warcraft 3.
Plus, if you ever really want to get Warcraft 3 (or get bored with SC2) you can just pick it up, I doubt that it's more than $20...
I've played Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 1 : Brood War - also a truly excellent game. However, I have not played Starcraft 2 so I can't exactly speak on behalf of both games, but, however, I would recommend Starcraft 2 as it is most likely more popular than Warcraft 3.
Plus, if you ever really want to get Warcraft 3 (or get bored with SC2) you can just pick it up, I doubt that it's more than $20...
Which game should I buy?
I don't want to buy them both, because I don't want to have too many games installed. Just looking for a nice strategy game on the Mac
you can get the to for cheap on gamersloot
for more news about the price go on their website but if you want news you can go on their facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gamerslootnet/148760525160091
see yaa
SC2 all the way. And for many reasons.
In WC3 battles always boil down to who has the better heroes. Having a high level hero pretty much makes all the other units you build almost pointless. Since heroes can become way over powered and can kill large swarms of lesser units easily. Whereas SC2 your build strategy and micromanagement matter more. Do you go for a hit and run tactic with terran marine + medivac combo? Or go slow and steady with heavy fire power from seige tanks and thors?
In WC3 its all about heroes heroes heroes. In SC2 you have to worry about how you build your base, harassing the other player's workers, building units to counter the other player's units etc etc.
Plus, like a previous poster said, SC2 is newer and is expected to get 2 more expansion packs, is played by more players and there are a ton of websites that are just devoted to SC2 tactics and strategies. The support and community aspect of SC2 is much larger than WC3. Go for SC2. You'll love it.
In WC3 battles always boil down to who has the better heroes. Having a high level hero pretty much makes all the other units you build almost pointless. Since heroes can become way over powered and can kill large swarms of lesser units easily. Whereas SC2 your build strategy and micromanagement matter more. Do you go for a hit and run tactic with terran marine + medivac combo? Or go slow and steady with heavy fire power from seige tanks and thors?
In WC3 its all about heroes heroes heroes. In SC2 you have to worry about how you build your base, harassing the other player's workers, building units to counter the other player's units etc etc.
Plus, like a previous poster said, SC2 is newer and is expected to get 2 more expansion packs, is played by more players and there are a ton of websites that are just devoted to SC2 tactics and strategies. The support and community aspect of SC2 is much larger than WC3. Go for SC2. You'll love it.
They're different games, and it depends on which you want more. As a lot of people have said, SC2 is about the army, making expansions, and big battles (yes, obviously still with micro if you want to win games). WC3 has heroes that build experience and other creatures around the map. This means you have to go out "hunting" to build up experience for the hero, while watching out for the other player and that your base is safe, etc. And I disagree that non-hero characters don't matter, they certainly do! But obviously the hero is more important the others on a 1-to-1 basis.
Overall, both are great games and if you like RTS you'll be happy with either. Both have macro and micro, it's just SC2 is weighted more towards macro and WC3 more towards micro. WC3 gives more variety in you have to decide which spells and whatnot to give heroes and there's creatures ("creep" if I remember my terms right) around the land you have to deal with, while SC2 is newer. Both are good.
Buy both.
Overall, both are great games and if you like RTS you'll be happy with either. Both have macro and micro, it's just SC2 is weighted more towards macro and WC3 more towards micro. WC3 gives more variety in you have to decide which spells and whatnot to give heroes and there's creatures ("creep" if I remember my terms right) around the land you have to deal with, while SC2 is newer. Both are good.
Buy both
.SC2 is also decent with the right integrated graphics card, as long as you're willing to stick with medium settings. Particularly if your have a 2.0ghz or better Dual Core Processor, the 320M is actually capable of smoothly running a versus match endgame at medium settings. Enough to be fully playable. You *could* bump the graphics up from there, but the framerate wont be smooth and thus not *playable* for some people.
Take note, SC2 still looks great at low settings. Even better at medium. That's considering that SC2 generally uses higher graphics than WC3, even at lower settings.
Of course, the game styles are a bit different between WC3 and SC2, so it's not just difference of atmosphere. WC3, of course, will run great on just about any recent machine. Both games are good, and the differences between them make them more like complimentary games than one replacing the other. Of course, this is all depending on which RTS gamestyle you like best.
Take note, SC2 still looks great at low settings. Even better at medium. That's considering that SC2 generally uses higher graphics than WC3, even at lower settings.
Of course, the game styles are a bit different between WC3 and SC2, so it's not just difference of atmosphere. WC3, of course, will run great on just about any recent machine. Both games are good, and the differences between them make them more like complimentary games than one replacing the other. Of course, this is all depending on which RTS gamestyle you like best.
I forgot to mention that multiplayer is probably the only thing I play. Is the multiplayer of SC 2 better than that of War3 + Frozen Throne?
SC2. Mostly because in since less and less people are playing WC3, matchmaking is getting harder and harder. Not impossible, but it just takes a lot longer.
If you've never played WC3 multiplayer don't bother starting now. You'll just get crushed instantly by the experts who are the only ones playing it now. SC2 probably has a fair number of casual players still playing.
I love WC3, but the playing field is pretty sparse right now. I'd say try out Starcraft, plus it's only 9 bucks on Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
SC2, hands down.
WC3 gets repetitive, and just ends up coming down to massing higher units and in the mean time creeping to level up your hero; I don't really find it fun at all.
WC3 gets repetitive, and just ends up coming down to massing higher units and in the mean time creeping to level up your hero; I don't really find it fun at all.
A lot of it comes down to your preference in the end.
A lot of people say WC3 is boring and repetitive, but so is Starcraft 2 at a high level. You build up in your base, expand, mass an army, attack (essentially). Yes sometimes there is harassment/drops but not so much as Protoss. I enjoy the game and I was ranked 1 world in 2v2 and I'm pretty high in 1v1 ~2500 diamond with 200 bonus pool.
WC3 is also repetitive but it seems like there is a lot more viable options for strategy since you can micro your way out of a "non-cookie cutter" build. I was also rank 1 2v2 on US East and for the most part I did the same thing most games but every game was different because the opponents can get different units that work instead of the same marine/marauder/medivac every game for example.
WC3 is not solely based on who has a higher level hero. That's crap. It helps, but definitely doesn't mean you win the game. Creeping is necessary, and all your other units DO matter. Why bother microing them if they didn't and just micro your hero? Massing higher units is the same as in SC2. Protoss --> Colossus/HT Zerg ---> Roach/Hydra or mass muta/ling Terran --> Marine Medivac Tank or marauder viking medivac thor etc etc
In the end, I'd base the decision based on the bigger gaming community/support. Secondly if you prefer largely micro style over largely macro style. WC3 was once a great and popular game (it's still a great game) but there isn't many players that are active. SC2 has LOTS of players and the multiplayer match making will put you up against people your same skill based on the division you make it into so it won't be frustrating when you play really good people all day long and lose every game.
As someone else said, buy both. Both great games and WC3 is super cheap
A lot of people say WC3 is boring and repetitive, but so is Starcraft 2 at a high level. You build up in your base, expand, mass an army, attack (essentially). Yes sometimes there is harassment/drops but not so much as Protoss. I enjoy the game and I was ranked 1 world in 2v2 and I'm pretty high in 1v1 ~2500 diamond with 200 bonus pool.
WC3 is also repetitive but it seems like there is a lot more viable options for strategy since you can micro your way out of a "non-cookie cutter" build. I was also rank 1 2v2 on US East and for the most part I did the same thing most games but every game was different because the opponents can get different units that work instead of the same marine/marauder/medivac every game for example.
WC3 is not solely based on who has a higher level hero. That's crap. It helps, but definitely doesn't mean you win the game. Creeping is necessary, and all your other units DO matter. Why bother microing them if they didn't and just micro your hero? Massing higher units is the same as in SC2. Protoss --> Colossus/HT Zerg ---> Roach/Hydra or mass muta/ling Terran --> Marine Medivac Tank or marauder viking medivac thor etc etc
In the end, I'd base the decision based on the bigger gaming community/support. Secondly if you prefer largely micro style over largely macro style. WC3 was once a great and popular game (it's still a great game) but there isn't many players that are active. SC2 has LOTS of players and the multiplayer match making will put you up against people your same skill based on the division you make it into so it won't be frustrating when you play really good people all day long and lose every game.
As someone else said, buy both. Both great games and WC3 is super cheap
