Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I liked it. Most people I know liked it (though nobody thought it was better that Starcraft). Better balanced than WC2, with more options. And it sold like a gajillion copies, so I'd say it was pretty popular.

Starcraft 2 is in development, but who knows when that will come out...

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Better balanced my butt LOL as I stated earlier the AI always was able to swarm over you even while your soldiers and heroes were still building the AI had somehow cranked out heroes and soldiers and gotten them up to like level 4 before they even reached your base heh and you call that balanced?

And how can you say more options?
WC 2 had
Aircraft
Ships
Land units
Island hopping campaigns http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Magics
Ranged units
Melee units

WC3 had:
Land units
Ranged
Melee
1 air unit per side that was easily killed for the price
Magicka
Lame attempts at Character development.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

WarIII >> WarII for me because I won more easily against the AI, and some spells are actually useful in the action. The main reason for why a lot of people in this forum don't like it is because people that like turn-based game like SEIV don't like real-time - it's too difficult to elaborate a true strategy in the battle.
Oh, and for me, it is far more better than StarCraft, because StarCraft is based only on speed (IMO)

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

The lack of ships was shocking I'll agree, although the humans did have Gryphons and Gyrocopters so thats two air units.
Yeah both are pretty easily killed, but the same could be said of WC2 air units, hell a few Elven archers or Troll axe throwers would annihilate any dragon/gryphon. WC2 air units were only good against someone stupid enough not to have any archers/axe guys in a force. A mistake no-one made twice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Blizzard always do tough AIs, in this case they're very agressive at going out killing random map units while building up a base, which is harder for a person to properly - Hence the AIs advantage.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I beat the basic campaign of War3, but wasn't overly impressed. If you read all the reviews, people loved it. This is hopefully the end of RTS crest until someone comes up with a new spin on it besides rush for resources.

StarCraft really was a fun game as was WarII.

The online community is full of doodz unfortunately who quit as soon as they start losing.

I didn't like the small number of units, although I did like the diversity. (I think the AI cheats in skirmish mode http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Well you shouldnt make your opinion out of 13 posts in this thread. To be more specific, up to now (several years after release) Warcraft III is still the worlds most popular and most online-played strategy-game. The only game able to beat it in games per day is, of course, counter-strike. Some people here say the AI is unbalanced. I tell you what, all by myself i can beat up up to three AIs in skirmishing. The people telling the game is hard or stupid should spent more time with it. If i rememer right it took me some time to master SE4 against AIs as well. Warcraft 3 is officially the worlds best and most played strategygame, apart from StarCraft, which is #1 in Korea.
You should definitly get the expansion "Frozen Throne", since it adds several heroes and more nice stuff.
You wont be dissapointed, at least not if you play other realtime-stuff, like command and conquer or empire earth or whateveras well. I for one played StarCraft for about 3 years, and Warcraft about 4 years. Online (Battle.net) is the best though.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I downloaded the demo before buying the game, and I was impressed by what I saw. Then again, the smaller unit limit doesn't bother me, since in Warcraft II I always tried to win with the least possible units. Rarely did I have more than 30-35 units at one time. The idea of a tougher AI also interests me since in WC2 the AI was (usually) rather easy to defeat. Build a bunch of defensive cannon and watch towers, watch the enemy send wave after wave of soldiers against them, be slaughtered, then get some peon or peasant to repair the towers for a fraction of the cost in gold and lumber that the AI used to build his strike force. Once the AI ran out of resources and quit sending units against you, move in and walk all over them. Simple really.

Air units have always been weak in Warcraft. Two watch towers or a few archers/axe throwers could easily take out a dragon or gryphon in WC2.

It sounds like the advantage that the AI has in WC3 is that it can perform many different tasks all at once. For example, train a new peon, build a new barracks and send some troops out exploring all at once, whereas you can only do one of those things at a time.

Anyways, thanks for all the opinions, please keep them coming!

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Popularity most certainly has NO relation to "best" in any way. Look at so-called American "pop" music... The majority of it is very poor from an artistic view point, yet it still sells many copies.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I too am on a Blizzard Strike/Boycott until they produce Starcraft 2. Nuf Said.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Hey I've been getting into Warhammer 40000 Dawn of War. Cool stuff.