VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 41 of 49, by WolverineDK

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I loved the HoMM 2, and then 3 , 4 came and I was like "it is okay, but not what I wanted". Then HoMM 5 came out, and I immediately fell in love again and its two expansions. Also I would say Warlords 2 Deluxe is probably my favourite of the Warlords games I have played. But oh well, why does it outshine it predecessors ? Probably because of its editor.

Reply 42 of 49, by Dreamer_of_the_past

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

To be honest this topic misleads a lot as it is a matter of personal preference who and what game likes more.
For instance HoMM II and HoMM III are not comparable since both games are great. Comparing the original Half-Life to Half-Life 2 is wrong as well, because I can find a bunch of people who swear by Half-Life 1. Another incorrect example is to compare the original Diablo to Diablo II because the second game has lost that dark Gothic atmosphere which Diablo 1 is known for.

Reply 43 of 49, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

To be honest this topic misleads a lot as it is a matter of personal preference who and what game likes more.
For instance HoMM II and HoMM III are not comparable since both games are great. Comparing the original Half-Life to Half-Life 2 is wrong as well, because I can find a bunch of people who swear by Half-Life 1. Another incorrect example is to compare the original Diablo to Diablo II because the second game has lost that dark Gothic atmosphere which Diablo 1 is known for.

Well, you are right, it is a matter of personal preference, but is it not the natural order of things? I can't see anything wrong with it. When it comes to "which game is better?", could there be any criteria other than personal preferences?

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 44 of 49, by Dreamer_of_the_past

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
tayyare wrote:
Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

To be honest this topic misleads a lot as it is a matter of personal preference who and what game likes more.
For instance HoMM II and HoMM III are not comparable since both games are great. Comparing the original Half-Life to Half-Life 2 is wrong as well, because I can find a bunch of people who swear by Half-Life 1. Another incorrect example is to compare the original Diablo to Diablo II because the second game has lost that dark Gothic atmosphere which Diablo 1 is known for.

Well, you are right, it is a matter of personal preference, but is it not the natural order of things? I can't see anything wrong with it. When it comes to "which game is better?", could there be any criteria other than personal preferences?

Well, in some ways sequels are better, but in some ways they are worst, not sure if "outshined" is the right word for it. Technically newer games will always be more advanced, but does it make them better in any way? I don't think so.

Reply 45 of 49, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:
tayyare wrote:
Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

To be honest this topic misleads a lot as it is a matter of personal preference who and what game likes more.
For instance HoMM II and HoMM III are not comparable since both games are great. Comparing the original Half-Life to Half-Life 2 is wrong as well, because I can find a bunch of people who swear by Half-Life 1. Another incorrect example is to compare the original Diablo to Diablo II because the second game has lost that dark Gothic atmosphere which Diablo 1 is known for.

Well, you are right, it is a matter of personal preference, but is it not the natural order of things? I can't see anything wrong with it. When it comes to "which game is better?", could there be any criteria other than personal preferences?

Well, in some ways sequels are better, but in some ways they are worst, not sure if "outshined" is the right word for it. Technically newer games will always be more advanced, but does it make them better in any way? I don't think so.

Well, you are again right. 😈 Technically newer games will always be more advanced, but this is not enough to make them better. Empire Earth III, Larry Magna Cum Laude, Postal III, Duke Nukem Forever are all well known for their worseness when compared to their predecessors. I personally can add New Wolfenstein, Warcraft III, FarCry 2 and some more to this list.

But again, isn't this the whole purpose of this? This is why the guy who is started this topic asking for "which ones?". 😀

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 46 of 49, by Dreamer_of_the_past

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
tayyare wrote:

Well, you are again right. 😈 Technically newer games will always be more advanced, but this is not enough to make them better. Empire Earth III, Larry Magna Cum Laude, Postal III, Duke Nukem Forever are all well known for their worseness when compared to their predecessors. I personally can add New Wolfenstein, Warcraft III, FarCry 2 and some more to this list.

But again, isn't this the whole purpose of this? This is why the guy who is started this topic asking for "which ones?". 😀

I haven't played those other games that you have listed, but Warcraft III was a success and the original Blizzard North team was part of the reason of it. Although it was the more advanced game compare to Warcraft II, which is why some of old school didn't like it. It was difficult for them to learn since they wanted a basic sequel to Warcraft II. The biggest problem most of old school players have done is when they refused to actually try this game out. People loved it around the world and it was very popular at the eSports scene. Therefore both Warcraft II and Warcraft III were successful games.

About the topic, a true outshined example might be Warcraft II compare to Warcraft 1, but then again someone may show up and say that he likes Warcaft 1 more than Warcraft II 😀

Reply 47 of 49, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

...I haven't played those other games that you have listed, but Warcraft III was a success and the original Blizzard North team was part of the reason of it. Although it was the more advanced game compare to Warcraft II, which is why some of old school didn't like it. It was difficult for them to learn since they wanted a basic sequel to Warcraft II. The biggest problem most of old school players have done is when they refused to actually try this game out. People loved it around the world and it was very popular at the eSports scene. Therefore both Warcraft II and Warcraft III were successful games.

Just as before, you are right again. They are both successful games. I have Warcraft III, played it to the end, and enjoyed it very much. I was just saying, to me, Warcaft II was more fun compared to Warcraft III, in my humble opinion. 😈

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000