Starcraft II The Reaper vs The Firebat

Nitz

My time is ticking away....
Staff member
Jan 12, 2006
4,781
8
38
Outworld, Canada
www.gamerz-place.net
Zenny
288
Points
0
The reaper is slated to replace the firebat. A lot of people have disagreements over the whole damn thing. A comparison of the two:

The firebat was the only Terran melee in sc1 (with the exception of SCV's, but how dumb would that be?) It is armed with a flamethrower, which is a well accepted weapon in many modern computer games. It was good for killing small units and screening marines, but lost most of its usefulness in the late game when all races started picking up huge long-range infantry killers (guardian-siegetank-reaver) it looked like a pretty cool unit both in art, and, in the age of 2D, still managed to look awesome in-game.

The reaper is a mercenary unit that is equipped, not with machine guns, bazooka's, flamethrowers, or lasers, but with PISTOLS. We are talking 25th century here. Raiders in the 5th century used fire against wooden huts, which is more effective, i would imagine, than pistols on command centers in the 25th. Thankfully blizzard gave reapers bombs, which is a pretty cool addition. Reapers can jump cliffs which are also pretty cool. reapers look ok by today's standards in-game, but rather horribly clunky in art. Despite the game not even coming out yet, and thus most people having never played the game, most people seem to agree that the reaper will only be useful at the start and lose efficiency at the end.

I do not hate the reaper. or at least i do not completely hate the reaper. but wouldnt it be cool to combine the reaper and the firebat? let it keep its bombs, and its jetpack, but drop the pistols and strap on flamethrowers! what could go wrong with that? :rolleyes: