For those curious about the first post, I think that they're now done by a bot script, in a manner meant to appear somewhere else. At first I thought that it might be because it's actually cross-posted with a forum somewhere, but I can't seem to find any forum section where they are posted. So it might be elsewhere. Kinda silly for it to show up in the comments section, though, unless this coment thread is simply one and the same as a forum thread somewhere... (THG comments used to be done through threads on the forumz)
Saying heroes ruined WarCraft III is a fair acusation. While yes, they "added" a lot of strategy to the game, they pretty much forced all strategy in the game revolve around them, as your hero(s) really constituted the majority of your armed strength; your other guys could do stuff, but with the stifling unit limits, (particularly that rediculous "upkeep" idea) they were still nothing compared to heroes. Furthermore, the necessity of leveling your hero to make them better, and to gather magical equipment for them, further detracted from the ability to be free in devising strategy.
Fortunately, I think it's pretty safe to say that StarCraft II will stick to what made the original good: unit-on-unit strategy that revolves around a rock-paper-scisors style system of one unit trumping another, but none being superior to all, and made for large battles. This is why the Protoss Mothership was originally touted as "you can only build one of these" to weaker units you could have multiples of; they realized that in the first form, it was just like a WarCraft III Hero; Protoss strategies would HAVE to have a decent deal of focus on their Mothership. But now, it should be that you won't even need to build any to win, or consequently, you could build lots of them and use them as a cornerstone of your strategy.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram