Heroes for SC2? Yes or no?

[DB]

I'm new to the Starcraft boards, so I don't know if this has already been done, but...


As many of you play WC3 I was curious to see if you liked the ideas of the heroes and hoped to see them in SC2?

 

[TrongaMonga]

No, don't want them there, one hero defeating an huge army sucks. Yes, it adds something different than the usual strategy games. But it's nothing more than a blizzard tool to compensate the lost of food because of the graphics and whatnot.

 

[aphextwin]

no, final answer. its just stupid having a hero doing all the work...... kinda like wc3 :0

 

[Guest]

No, I would not like to see those fuxxing heros, because in a war iii game it's all about the heros. I would not want that to happen to my belvled sc now would I .

 

[Wing Zero]

nah theres already UMS games that have HEro hungry games

 

[Malcom Sex]

I think SC2 should have heroes but only get to have 1 and it cannot be resurrected

 

[Wing Zero]

Originally posted by The Final Vulture
I think SC2 should have heroes but only get to have 1 and it cannot be resurrected

i think we already have that

 

[Morgawr]

No heros like in wc3 that would be dumb..and make most of sc 2 easy if they had heros..unless u only started out with um..they cant gin levels and if they die..there dead..like Jim Raynor and stuff

 

[Wing Zero]

if u think a bout it tho the sc heros are a bit weak

 

[K0r34n Jja Shik]

or maybe the damage points in sc are worth more than the damage points in wc. So a marine attack does 5 in sc, maybe itll do 50 in WC...


Or i should shut up.

 

[Apple]

yes... but they shood just have a differnt name, and the same stats as regular units.

 

[DigitalElite]

I like how blizzard did it with Starcraft...they are a little more powerful than normal units, such as Raynor, or Kerrigan.

 

[SpX]

I personally think Warcraft 3 shouldn't have heros because you can beat 4 guys and your hero doesn't die. I like Warcraft 3 and stuff, but I think it gets a little annoying because when you all you do is mass one unit in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. I think it's just too easy. I would play Starcraft more, but I lag a lot. Anyways back to your question, I would say that they shouldn't have heros, you need more Strategy.

 

[K0r34n Jja Shik]

If you lag in SC, shouldn't you lag even more on WC3?

 

[x42bn6]

I'm afraid Starcraft can't afford to introduce a hero element if it wants something 'new' compared to Warcraft III.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Umm I think you miss the point of heros. HEROS DO NOT TAKE ON WHOLE ARMYS.

Sure they are a big part of the game ,but you don't have everyhtign focused on a hero and then u win cause of the hero you picked. Taht is narrowminded. no there is a lot more depth in heros, and the untis u use them with. wrcraft is 85% about the units you pick, and what you do with them, 15% is hero choice and abilities.

Not to mention warcraft requries alot more micro than starcraft anyways.

I say there should be heros

 

[PauseBreak]

Heros = yes

people saying heros in WC3 sucked, thus, the whole game sucks. yet its very popular, so yes to heros.

 

[Lwek]

Losing hero's are one of a map makers worst nightmare. That cuts the unit count of SC2 in half. No map maker likes that.

 

[Wing Zero]

Originally posted by MrBret
Heros = yes

people saying heros in WC3 sucked, thus, the whole game sucks. yet its very popular, so yes to heros.

or maby cus there loyal wc fans? Heros=No

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Warcraft III has probly 100 more units than starcraft had, and that is all made up in creeps and neutrals.

You want to talk about mapmaking. use the warcraft map maker. its like flying a jet, while starcraft players are still sitting in thier diapers playing around with a plastic toy airplane.