You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.25 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Better Online Game? StarCraft or AoM?
Topic Subject:Better Online Game? StarCraft or AoM?
posted 14 November 2002 09:08 AM EDT (US)         
What do you guys think is a better ONLINE game? StarCraft or AoM?
posted 14 November 2002 09:13 AM EDT (US)     1 / 25       
battle net...

kill me if you want but

SC was much quicker with then slow ESO, and you can have private discussions with people and meet with friends after the game without worrying about otherpeople listening in on your convo.

o ya.. for the game AOM ownz :P


[This message has been edited by byzmaster (edited 11-14-2002 @ 09:14 AM).]

posted 14 November 2002 09:18 AM EDT (US)     2 / 25       
No, I agree, I loved SC on WAY better interface and very interesting battles. We'll see as AoM matures though. We might get a slew of new updates with a patch and Expansions. Go ESO.
posted 14 November 2002 09:30 AM EDT (US)     3 / 25       
Starcraft although better then War3, is no where close to AOM. I never played on, but i played multiplayer in starcraft, and it was pretty boring. I Unistalled the game like a week later. And a month ago a was cleaning out old games a i have, so i through it out, because it sucks.

posted 14 November 2002 06:04 PM EDT (US)     4 / 25       
SC is much exciting than AOM, tons of different tactic you can use to defeat or be defeat by your enemies. Units counter not simply done by damage multiplier but by special skills of the unit. Best RTS ever!!!
posted 14 November 2002 06:13 PM EDT (US)     5 / 25       
Hey panzer..
i take it you don't have AoM yet...
Donny Starko
(id: StArK_ZeRo)
posted 14 November 2002 06:26 PM EDT (US)     6 / 25       
I havent played aom yet but i'll be buying it soon. Anyway, SC is okay but i think aom is probably a lot better. I played SC online and it was pretty boring, and theres no way it can be the best RTS ever.The best RTS would be either ROR or AOC.

"This is real, it's the same place where i get my other harlious news!" -Brock88
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."-George W. Bush
"I love playing the AoK Theme in the middle of the night at full volume. Then I run around dressed up like a M@A and attack people."-Spitfire
This signature is subject to copywright. 2004
posted 15 November 2002 02:13 AM EDT (US)     7 / 25       

SC = Best RTS ever
Maybe AoE5 will as good as StarCraft
posted 15 November 2002 02:52 AM EDT (US)     8 / 25       
Sc is like 4 years old?..
people still play it?
posted 15 November 2002 02:59 AM EDT (US)     9 / 25       
Yes about 20 times more people plaing SC than AoM right now.
posted 15 November 2002 03:10 AM EDT (US)     10 / 25       
There must be something good about StarCraft to keep people playing it after years on the market. If StarCraft had sequels, people would have moved on surely. Don't know why they didn't do that? Some StarCraft Ghost something is supposed to come out in the near future but I don't think that is an RTS.

Far as I know, people still play Age of Empires also. Age of Kings took most of that crowd away and now most AoK people will probably move on to Age of Mythology. The games evolution makes it better I think. Plus the context of the game universe is so much more appealing.

I tried out and personally didn't like StarCraft but the gameplay (balance, strats, etc) in that game is supposed to be excellent. It just wasn't an appealing universe to play in.

posted 15 November 2002 05:04 AM EDT (US)     11 / 25       

ya know whats sad though?

when starcraft 2 comes out.. its not gonna be near as good as the first one.. know why? cause every developer out there..has to try and IMPROVE the game. They cant say..ok this game was REALLY popular..people loved it..lets just give em more of the same..6 races..more units..more technology.. better graphics..package it and sell it.

NOPE! they are gonna have to change everything about it..change its focus..change its strategy..change the number of units and the look of the races.. everything will change and they will call it "THE NEXT GENERATION OF RTSs" and people will buy it in droves and say its a good game but not as good as the original..and many people will be upset that its not the sequel they wanted so on and so forth..but SC1 is good enough..and blizzard is popular enough..that they will still clean up on SC2 and call it a success. But they wont have as many fans when SC3 comes out..or at the very least..their oldest fans will move on to something more like the original SC.

it happens all the time happened with AOM. developers are deathly affraid of putting out more of the same because then someone will say "this isnt original, this is the same thing, you arent a game developer, you have no imagination, your a money grubbing bastard who just wants me to pay for your products" well when your game is loved by thousands..they dont always want something new..they want a better looking..more polished version of the original..with the same stuff but in greater quantities.

Look at GTA: Vice City.. they didnt change a dang thing..they just gave more of the same..and people LOVE IT. Look at Warcraft and Warcraft 2.. people loved both of em..Warcraft 3 changed things up.. andits still incredibly popular..but not as good as the first 2. UT and UT2003.. again..still popular..but not like the first one..they changed too much. you will notice, that on CONSOLE games, they dont change much..they put out the same product for the sequel..but with more stuff.. and people love it and call em classics. THAT is what makes a game a classic.. you dont CHANGE everything..that just leads to you LOSING old fans and gaining new ones.. you wanna KEEP your old fans and gain a few new ones. And you do that by giving your OLD fans more of the same..but more polished with more stuff to do.

Its sad :P..developers need to quit listening to these fools who feel that EVERY GAME THAT HITS THE SHELVES has to be a NEW idea with a NEW concept and a NEW way of playing.. it all has to be OFF THE WALL and ORIGINAL and NEW NEW NEW.. screw that. what happened to FUN FUN FUN. People say "oh FPSs suck, they arent original, they just take the same concept from DOOM and Wolf3d and give it better graphics." my arse.. they take the same CONCEPT yes..but they put in MORE stuff and slightly different ways of doing things. I dont see the 100,000 gamers out there playing FPSs complaining about how unfun their game is cause it isnt original. Geez..its so obvious..and yet this SAME cylce of crappy "original" games will continue because developers are so affraid that their games will become less popular if they dont change everything to keep peoples interest.


posted 15 November 2002 05:27 AM EDT (US)     12 / 25       
I'd say Starcraft and AOM are equal. I play starcraft about 3 times a week still. WCIII I can't stand because of the micromanagment needed for the heros.

Also, contrary to what Panzer_Erwin said, Starcraft does have damage modifiers. They just have it so "Explosive" damage hurts "large" units better than "small" units. "Concussive" damage does the opposite. Then some damage only affects "biological" units others "mechanical". It goes on too....

posted 15 November 2002 05:42 AM EDT (US)     13 / 25       
I agree that it's not necessary to have brand new concepts for sequels.
But i nspite of that i thing 95% of sequels are better than
it's predecessors. Ut2K3 is better than UT, War3 is better than War2, AoM is better than AoC. But it depend on define,
what is better. SC2 will be very probably better game than original SC, but original SC will be better in the overall gaming history because SC was the best multiplayer game about several years and one game can repeat this succes in near future.
posted 15 November 2002 06:06 AM EDT (US)     14 / 25       
Warcraft3 > Starcraft
AOM > Warcraft 3

AOM > Starcraft

Headshot!! That will slow him down!
posted 15 November 2002 06:55 AM EDT (US)     15 / 25       
I guess it all boils down to opinions again. Warcraft3 was a hit.. though MANY people dont like it. There are still enough people that do like it that will keep it from ever being seen as an unsuccessful game. Same with UT2003. I guess, looking at it financially, it doesnt matter if you leave your old fans out in the cold and acquire a slew of new long as they pay their $50 and give your game positive "press".
posted 15 November 2002 07:43 AM EDT (US)     16 / 25       
I loves StarCraft! If SC online vs AoK:TC online, then I would say SC is heaps better. But for AoM, I haven't tried it out online yet, hope to try it out soon.

I have to say StarCraft is the best RTS ever. I've bought StarCraft when it came out, got the expansion and still love it. But it's a real pity that none of my friends play it...

posted 15 November 2002 07:57 AM EDT (US)     17 / 25       
posted 15 November 2002 09:21 AM EDT (US)     18 / 25       

lvl6 potm cast starfall=gg
posted 15 November 2002 09:33 AM EDT (US)     19 / 25       
StarCraft Brood Wars, Blizzard Entertainment. I'd put this game up against ANY RTS and it would win to this day. Problem? The game is old as sin. What we need is SC2. But Blizzard wants to do other things like Worlds of Warcraft and Starcraft:Ghost.... Blah
posted 15 November 2002 12:29 PM EDT (US)     20 / 25       
sc is the god of RTS, totally balanced ( well with BW ) very fun, new, and differnt ( for its time ) but the game is still 5 years old!! and still has a 100k following. well i guess u can thx korea for that ehhe

SC>all other RTS games hands down

aom>war3 however though

posted 15 November 2002 04:28 PM EDT (US)     21 / 25       
Well, the problem is, most people want to have some things different. Maybe you want to buy the same game twice, but i like to see at least some changes. Sure, UT2k3 maybe lost a few fans cuz it's harder to kill people (no more rampages w/ the rocket launcher where you're killing everything in sight), but i personally think its a step in the right direction. Say they try something different for once. i say go for it. keeping everything the same can get kind of mind-numbing. just look at ALL of the Command & conquer games to see what i mean. just my opinion..

one thing that is/was kind of an annoyance w/ starcraft was that the 'join' list w/ all the games, all they had was a drop-down list that could only show like 6 games at once. so if you wanted to play a certain kind of map, you had to search forever. just a little nit. but otherwise, starcraft was great fun.

"Skydiving. Good to the last drop."
posted 15 November 2002 04:52 PM EDT (US)     22 / 25       
I don't know AoM too well but I know AoK like the back of my hand and starcraft as well. I'd say Age Of Kings has much more strategy than any other rts I have played for a lengthly ammount of time. Just by taking in things like formations, that you will not find in other rts games. The formations, units stance, and all things like such in the game give age of kings an awesome environment not matched yet by the other RTS games I know well. Micromanagement is placed almost to the point where no more control can be managed. The Craft games are all macro kind of strategy. In Age Of kings you can be outnumbered 3 to one and still achieve victory. Why? because of terrain and things like such. In starcraft this is not possible nor in broodwar. When it comes to Micromanagement it is no match to the micromanagement present AoK or AoC where the better tactician is capable of slaying a more numerous opponent. In The craft you must rely basically on numbers though some tactics are used. Just go to the editors of both. Make a huge battle (the type you have in deathmatches where two armies meet) with mixed units in the way you think they will work best. You will see how tactics will be decisive to win the fight when in AoK. In starcraft tactics are really reduced since you only can control groups of twelve at a time. Therefore sheer firepower is the key to win a massive starcraft battle. In Age of Kings you have to be more devious, clever, and colder to win a fight. when you win such a fight, and even during the fight, you'll feel quite well. Better than the craft games where relying on mass (no matter how balanced the game is) is the base of all strategies.

[This message has been edited by Elendil_King (edited 11-15-2002 @ 04:59 PM).]

da rappa
posted 15 November 2002 04:56 PM EDT (US)     23 / 25       
When you find yourself unacceptable to newer ideas you should either stick to the classics or quit gaming as a hobby.

I myself am hunting for some snes roms and maybe acquire a few PS ones.

posted 15 November 2002 06:15 PM EDT (US)     24 / 25       
well sc is old.. but pretty solidly desinged (I never got into it and always sucked) however battlenet currenlty and even with sc is better than todays Eso

Eso isnt finished though...

for gameplay however aom is better..

posted 15 November 2002 06:22 PM EDT (US)     25 / 25       
SC is a very solid game. I played it for quite a bit, with AOE. But SC got old after a while and I moved on to AOK. But SC is a great game.

But pretty much what you will get here is ES followers vs. Blizzard followers.

From my point of view, in this age, AOM is better. SC just got old. Sure ESO isn't the fastest now, but once your in a game its fired up. From playing bolth games, if your choosing what to play now, go AOM.

Even if you like SC better now, i'd suggest taking AOM for a test drive, if ya don't like it return it. But I think it will grow on you .

\\ Maximus //
Amazing Persón Extróidinare
.°*˜Phantom Warriors˜*°.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames