DIABLO 3 OR STARCRAFT 2

Never played anyone of them XD

Dude, you have to put a little more thought into opening posts. At least provide some background (and get the details correct).

Diablo III all the way. While Starcraft 2 looks good, action-RPG > RTS these days. I find that RTSs released in the last decade have been bogged down by over complicated design and 3D graphics. RTSs are twitch games, and these highly detailed, rotatable graphics actually make them HARDER to play as units (and buildings and environments) tend to take longer to recognize and target/select/react to.

Furthermore, they put (retarded) tech trees everywhere in the game, where you have to invest and build in a myriad different buildings and upgrades just to use the unit. Plus, every unit has "special" abilities which are often just a pain in the ass to activate, and hardly worth the effort.

And don't even get me started on hero units.

...

anywho, Diablo III ftw.

bahleted

author=kentona link=topic=2924.msg56913#msg56913 date=1232400830
Dude, you have to put a little more thought into opening posts. At least provide some background (and get the details correct).

Diablo III all the way. While Starcraft 2 looks good, action-RPG > RTS these days. I find that RTSs released in the last decade have been bogged down by over complicated design and 3D graphics. RTSs are twitch games, and these highly detailed, rotatable graphics actually make them HARDER to play as units (and buildings and environments) tend to take longer to recognize and target/select/react to.

Furthermore, they put (retarded) tech trees everywhere in the game, where you have to invest and build in a myriad different buildings and upgrades just to use the unit. Plus, every unit has "special" abilities which are often just a pain in the ass to activate, and hardly worth the effort.

And don't even get me started on hero units.

...

anywho, Diablo III ftw.

I don't understand what was so complicated about using spells that if you were going to be using them constantly, they were probably already automatically activated, and heroes weren't too hard to destroy. Hotkeys man Hotkeys!

Anyways, Starcraft II just because I've played plenty of Starcraft in my day and not Diablo at all really. I still intend on getting Diablo 3 when it comes out.

author=Natook link=topic=2924.msg56977#msg56977 date=1232423930

author=kentona link=topic=2924.msg56913#msg56913 date=1232400830
Dude, you have to put a little more thought into opening posts. At least provide some background (and get the details correct).

Diablo III all the way. While Starcraft 2 looks good, action-RPG > RTS these days. I find that RTSs released in the last decade have been bogged down by over complicated design and 3D graphics. RTSs are twitch games, and these highly detailed, rotatable graphics actually make them HARDER to play as units (and buildings and environments) tend to take longer to recognize and target/select/react to.

Furthermore, they put (retarded) tech trees everywhere in the game, where you have to invest and build in a myriad different buildings and upgrades just to use the unit. Plus, every unit has "special" abilities which are often just a pain in the ass to activate, and hardly worth the effort.

And don't even get me started on hero units.

...

anywho, Diablo III ftw.

I don't understand what was so complicated about using spells that if you were going to be using them constantly, they were probably already automatically activated, and heroes weren't too hard to destroy. Hotkeys man Hotkeys!

Anyways, Starcraft II just because I've played plenty of Starcraft in my day and not Diablo at all really. I still intend on getting Diablo 3 when it comes out.

When I play RTS, I like the strategy of managing an army effectively, not micromanaging a giant RPG party.

Diablo II is crack cocaine (that, I'm told, was later refined to the powdered cocaine of WoW).

...except Diablo II is free to play after you purchase it.

You are so learned.

author=brandonabley link=topic=2924.msg58921#msg58921 date=1233176938

author=kentona link=topic=2924.msg58821#msg58821 date=1233154921
Diablo II is crack cocaine (that, I'm told, was later refined to the powdered cocaine of WoW).

You have your hard drugs references mixed up. Powdered cocaine is unrefined, so it is less addictive and less stimulating than crack cocaine. Crack cocaine is made by frying baking soda and cocaine in a spoon - you can experiment with the ratios, but I make the best rocks with a ratio of 3/4 powder and 1/4 baking soda. Smoking rocks not only gets more cocaine into your system more quickly, but there is the added benefit of not tearing up your sinuses and getting nosebleeds and sinus rot.

You never cease to impress me with your sagacity, Him.

I'd contribute more to the conversation, but I've gotta go get some baking soda.


(Also: Starcraft 2. I never cared about the Diablo series much. Point and click RPGs aren't my bag)

author=Mitsuhide_The_Vagrant link=topic=2924.msg59050#msg59050 date=1233208001

author=Shadowtext link=topic=2924.msg59040#msg59040 date=1233207411
(Also: Starcraft 2. I never cared about the Diablo series much. Point and click RPGs aren't my bag)

Well that adds another person to the small list of players who'd rather play starcraft.

"Small list of players" if you don't count the entire population of Korea.