Ah...that is a really hard question...so far, I think Starcraft is the most balanced RTS existing thus far. Each race requires completely different tactics, but none are at a particular advantage or disadvantage on any given map. Warcraft 3 on the other hand, requires the same tactics for every race...with the only variation being in the combination of units people choose, but essentially evey match is the same (usually a 2 min rush). But however, as far as costom mapping goes, warcraft 3 in infinatly more versatile. Ive played over 700 games of Starcraft and only a little over 30 WC3...but if I had to choose a game, I would say WC3...simply because of the costomization and mapping.
In starcraft, if you loose your entire army in a blotched attempt to take out your enemy, you can replace it quickly and easily enouph to still stay in the game, whereas in Warcraft, if you loose your army and particularly your heroes in the first major encounter, you've already pretty much lost the game since you never have enouph time to revive your heroes by the time they reach your base, and as you all know, heroes are everything. That is one thing I really don't like about WC3...that and they NEVER STOP PATCHING IT!! One day I WILL be able to safely save a replay without worrying bout it being invalidated the next month. -VGsatomi
B-L-O-O-D-E-D is right... but for now i prefer wc3 because the enchanter map editing and the hero idea (think about it, that what realy make wc3 to special, allmost every map got heros)
LOL you can't say "poor graphics" because for it's time the graphic wasn't that bad for a rts. And the graphic wasn't that important those times, story and balancing were more.
You are forgetting how OLD starcraft is...comparing the graphics and music to wc3 is simply unfair....SC first came out when 3D games were in their infant stage...and 3D RTS was simply unheard of. So why didnt they make it like wc3? That's pretty frigg'n obvious... But SC is better in some ways then WC3 and worse in others...SC is an overall faster paced game that involves more strategy and doesnt revolve around a few heroes, but management of armies and economies in ways that make WC3 look simple. I just hope Blizzard revisits the series in an RTS format. And as far as 2D goes, the graphics arent that bad... -VGsatomi
You cant say that Wc3 is just about the controll of the heros. Good players dont send there entire army into the fight and then just focus on the heros. Thats how a noob play (Im talking about melee games)
That's not what I meant. I meant that heroes are the key. No one has ever won a battle (that ive seen) without heroes, its like the game revolves around them. So micromanaging your heroes is almost more important then micromanaging your armies... -VGsatomi
You can't blame the graphics of Starcraft like VGsatomi said. It depends on your strategy. Do you prefer large armies like Starcraft or micromanagement with units like Warcraft 3?
Well i personally think Starcraft was the worst game Blizzard ever made. Starcraft and diablo are the only games I only purchased the first one and deleted the day after playing.
Granted I hate wc3s normal games because all it is is a race to level heroes.
But the reason I like Wc3 better is because any RTS is better when there is orcs and elfers + requires more strategy when heroes are not used.