I talk about the differences between SC2 and WC3, hope you enjoy it - though listening back to it, I feel there’s many different areas I didn’t discuss yet. To properly do justice to both games, I’d have to do a one hour video with preparation on it, so I can point out the things I love most about each game. Oh well maybe next time!

Units are much more expendable and die faster in SC2 than WC3. It's very difficult to one shot units in WC3, even workers. There are only some high level/tech abilities that can one shot units.

Even though I don't play neither SC2 no WC3 I was listening to Grubby like I wasn't in my Uni. Thanks for the content.

I always enjoyed a nice SC2 macro game, but I prefer WC3 in almost any given case personally, heroes just add so much to the game. Whereas SC2 was pretty much designed to be an e-sport title, WC3 feels a lot more "innocent and fun". It's a testament to both SC and WC that we're still here 25 years later though.

For Terran, I think the best way to describe their advantage is that everything is ranged. So, while they can always get an advantageous fight by having preemptively higher range, like said, they're also able to just instantly die to random things if you aren't paying attention.

hmm, in my teens i have played wc3. and last years i have played a fair bit of sc2 and now trying to get back into wc3. wrap up for me: i love how good sc2 feels. the engine, the controls, how you can custimize controls and layouts (for example, i build my own grid layout where every single race, building or unit has its most used command on spacebar. protoss: clicking a probe and hitting double spacebar builds a pylon because space is build menu and space is then pylon. on zerg space is also doing injects for example, spacebar is also used for the most important upgrade in every building) i love the campaign and story and all that stuff in sc2 aswell. however i can only run luke warm with sc2 in multiplayer. watching professional sc2 is fun, especially since i live next door of taketv so i can watch stuff live there too. however PLAYING 1v1 ladder just stresses me out and gives me anxiety that kind of takes all the fun away because you know: if you mess up one thing or the opponent is 20 seconds faster than you, you can pretty much ff because the game is over. it feels like you are playing more against yourself and your own skill (wich if you are more of a casual and you know that you arent that great is really frustrating) and you cant really try out weird stuff because the opponent will just overrun you. also for some reason i kind of cant identify with any of the races, all of the races have stuff about them i dont like, and most of the units i find a little uninteresting. i dont know. overall in MP, i find the way sc2 is structured and the races and stuff a little depressing... it can be fun, but its not really made to make me feel good or enjoy myself or feel nice. on the other hand wc3 does alot of that way better. its slower speed, i can chill more, i dont get punished for 1 mistake or for being 0,5 seconds too slow, and overall you interact with you opponent, rather than fighting your own skill. and also the entire sound design and the quirky derpy graphics and the races and all, i just find the game less depressing to look at and play.

Wow, I hope you continue the endgame commentary. Much like day[9], the analysis from you guys is my favorite part!

To me it's the scope. WC3 is about factions in a world, so you have smaller scales battles, and every unit death is meaninful. SC2 is about galaxy war, so the battles are much bigger and individual deaths do not matter so much. That's what I think conects the overall "lore" to the gameplay

The thing I like about SC2 is that it feels to me it supports more different builds than WC3. In WC3, most of your build decision is what heroes you choose but in terms of army, most players are in about the same ballpark when doing the standard build. Each race then has about one more specialized unit composition (like Ghoul rush as UN). SC2 has a lot of variation in what army compositions are viable. Zerg, for example, can choose to go Ling Bane Muta, Ling Bane Hydra, Roach Ravager, Roach Hydra, Nydus Swarm Host or Hydra Lurker as their mid game army composition and all of them work and result in slightly different play styles.

In WC3, you try to damn best to prevent every single unit from dying. In SC2, you constantly send scores of your units on suicide missions (with the hopeful assumption that they kill a greater value of your opponents units).

Thank you for being the only person that could explain those diferences

I am very excited for you to be uploading SC2 as well grubs. Though WC3 will forever be my favorite game ever, SC2 is a great RTS, and I will always prefer RTS videos over mobas or 4X games

Great video! Loved to hear all the explanations! :)

It's great that you are introducing us to a new game in your channel. Maybe this means in the future we'll get to see more variety in Grubby's games. That would be nice And I didn't play much SC2 (I'm bad at it) but I enjoy watching it so this is a win/win for me

As someone who enjoys SC2 and want to buy Reforged i find this super informative- Thank You Grubby!

"Zerg has very little splash" -- Baneling says hello. Early. "Protoss doesn't kill buildings quickly" -- Immortal says hello. Early.

It was pleasure to watch and listen to this video.

I would love to see you try something like Age of Empires (preferably 2) for a few games.

Grubby could you elaborate on why you choose playing with the Protoss? and do a comparison with the other races as well.

Both games have high skill ceilings for both micro and macro, but WC3 is more micro intensive and SC2 is more macro intensive. As a result, as Grubby mentioned, WC3 is more forgiving because of heroes; but also RNG plays a much bigger role in the game. Overall, SC2 is a more complex game. In terms of game development, SC2 made huge improvements in the interface and control. Personally, I was better at WC3 back in its day. I think primarily because there's just less going on in the game. It focuses more on making decisions in real time and micro'ing your army; due in no small part to the fact that there's just fewer units.

regarding adepts. You can use your own adepts to block an opponent adept shade from coming through the gap in the buildings. Simply shade your own adept and put the shade in the opening. Shades collide with shades

For someone that didn't play starcraft but warcraft the transition is pretty brutal and I guess it works both ways. My main problem is which race to play and learning all the units, abilities and upgrades in SC

One is in medieval fantasy and the other one is in space Pepega

Well I think It will be interesting watching you play age of empires 2 since it needs a lot of micro and economy management and with your micro skills I think you will perform well

Grubby on sc2 and protoss????? Great, cannon rush video please xD

Thx man! Keep up!

WC3 is more enjoyable to watch

MassCraft II HeroCraft III

Just imagine a Warcraft 4 that has the balance of Starcraft and the battle mechanics of Warhammer 3

I find sc2 incredibly discouraging coming from a wc3 background because of that 10 minutes of buildup then 2 seconds of fighting and the game is over thing. It makes you feel like you completely failed and have no idea why. It's reversed from wc3 where you can have interesting fights relatively quickly and the choices and decisions you make during those fights matter incredibly later on. SC2 is more like, you selected X build order and executed it 10 seconds faster than your opponent, therefore you win. You selected Y build order but started production 5 seconds late, so you lose. If you don't have the right mindset it can be incredibly frustrating. Thanks for the video!

Archons, templar, colossus, Disruptor. Banelings (+baneling drops), Infestors, Ultralisks, lurkers Siege tanks, widow mines, Hellion/Hellbats, Thors/Liberators (Air splash), Ghosts (shield splash) To say Protoss has the most splash is kinda wrong.

heroes (items, creeps), upkeep

I always felt that WC3 had the perfect amount of units. The RPG elements and slightly reduced macro elements also spoke to me. SC2 is a great game, but I feel that with HotS it was just too many units and I find it hard to differentiate roles between them. This got worse with LotV ans also the macro elements require such speed that I am not able to keep up.

Could you make some videos of sc2 coop as well?

Micro is harder in wc3 if you ask me. The abilities you can use in sc2 are pretty basic in comparison and the units behave smarter + infinite unit stacks. Both are fantastic games though and two of Blizzards greatest masterpieces

All in Andy is actually my nickname in the bedroom.

I'm waiting for a Starcraft - Universe MMORPG

The only thing i disagree with is that sc2 doesn't have RNG, I think scouting is so crucial, especially when it comes to proxies, and with fog of war you can get really lucky or unlucky when others scout you or if your unit barely doesn't see the enemy building.

Holyshit that stalker micro. I am watching BeastyQT YT and he is ex-pro Terran amd when he will play Protoss his stalker micro doesn't look evem close to something like that.

06:54 So, basically, Starcraft 2 is like Mozart, while Warcraft 3 is like Miles Davis?

Main differences are W vs St

Well actually you could only get 500 unit per group.

I'd have loved if they made improvements to reforged and increased the unit cap in selection, though my main problem when I last played in feb was there was a bug that prevented me from removing certain units from the groups which caused my heros to somehow end up on multiple control groups that I didn't want them on by the end of a game... which could have at least been somewhat mitigated by larger control groups. Also limiting control groups to 12 units effects things like flying machines and gargs far more than other units. And the thing is, changing unit cap selection wouldn't really change 2/3rds of the game when working with smaller groups is better, it would really only make lategame more fun and it overall a bit more tolerable to new and returning players which the game desperately needed.

Before warcraft 3 I played Command&Conquer when I first played in war3 I thought it is worst game ever coz of selection limit and very weak unit attack and weakness of heros that cannot kill just small creep camp at lo levels. I thought why they are named Heros if they are very weak... Sc2 i never played

More content please!

SC2 has a higher skill ceiling in macro and in micro, more strategic layers and execution, easier to understand for spectators, whereas: WC3 has more stereotypical "fun" elements, more unique interactions and game-specific knowledge, more match-up specifications and randomness.

I want to play this game how play it online????

sc2 = istj 1w9 wc3 = intp 5w6

Grubby, you should try Age of Empires 3, which is a mix between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2.

I'd slightly disagree with how you envision race's micro potential. Zerg - too high micro potential, (almost) nobody even tries to micro this Terran - indeed, high micro potential, and quite some people are successful at it Protoss - least micro potential, still higher than wc3, but also means it's easier to execute unit's potential at its fullest, they're Orc of Starcraft Protoss is easier to play, but Zerg has highest potential. This way, 100 out of 200 top players are Protosses, but the top 1-2-3 are Zergs (Serral, Rogue, Dark).

Lol wtf never heard anyone say H U D instead of hud lol

Plz find a different game. Total War?

My basic logic in starcraft Protoss: overpower Zerg: overwhelm Terran: tactics

just wc3

Heroes. Finished.

umm i hate to be this guy but i got high ranked diamond in SC2 just going DT rush every game, last year. then i quit. I find it just to easy.

Brood war is my favorite, SC2 sucks and is actually imbalanced for years.