OT: Warcraft 3???
 

For those of you who have this game, what do you think of it, especially compared to previous games such as Warcraft II??

I'm interested in various impressions etc, as I have recently bought the game and it should arrive within 10 days or so. Thanks!

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I have refused to play anymore Blizzard games till they give me some sorta Starcraft 2

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I have all 3 Warcraft games. I liked III the least. I actually only played it a while and never even finished all the basic campaigns. I thought it was boring. It got away from the things that made the first two games good. It introduced heros that could gain a few levels. The big thing for me was that the number of units you could build was significantly limited. I dunno, maybe others might like it better, but I didn't.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Warcraft II was the best of all time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Warcraft III was borng, you could control something like 30 or 35 people (including peasents) at best the AI was NEVER balanced and always seemed to be able to rush you over and over and over again while your soldiers were still in training.

Night Elves SUCKED, because if they didn't have their heroes with them they got slaughtered.

Humans sucked because even if they did have their heroes they took so bloody long for a human player to train them that by time they were free the AI would have rushed you at least five timse.

Orcs SUCK because their heroes might as well not be there cause they aren't the greatest fighters in the world.

The UNDEAD suck because their basic units are not good fighters at all, though at least they have the advantage of picking up your guys festering corpses and turning them into fresh troops.

Get the gist of the game so far?

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I take it it's not very popular...then again, I guess I'll find out in a week or two. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Any other opinions?? (Not that I don't trust you two, but the more opinions, the better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif )

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I enjoyed it, but then it was a gift. I don't know if I'd pay for it.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I did not like the game myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I have the game and I think the best is the map editor.
You can add as many new units as you want to a map.I add create 9 maps and it is so funny to mix themes as Starcraft or Command and Conquer with night elves.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Hmm, I have only played Warcraft I a bit a long time ago and I liked it. I have never seen II or III.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Well apart from a ridiculously good AI which will stomp all over you in a skirmish I didn't think it was that bad.

Mind you I did pick it up pretty cheap during a sale, if I'd paid full price then I might be less charitable.

The main problem is the low unit limit, the lack of some of the really cool voices from Warcraft II and some of the new units are awfull.

Still wading in against the evil orks with a shed load of knights backed up with a blizzard remains as fun as ever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

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.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I believe they're currently working on Starcraft 2.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Doesn't compare to Total Annihilation, nothing Blizzard ever made has, but its OK. As for Starcraft 2, all I've heard about is Starcraft: Ghost, or something like that, and it is a FPS.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Hey, if you guys like world of warcraft here is a warcraft site, they also have a world warcraft chat channel on irc and they tell you how to get there,


http://www.1greborn.com/preview/

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I think WCIII is the worst game Blizzard ever released, though it has the best graphics. The way each side seems to have roughly 1 effective unit, no effective defenses, no tactics (that I could see) other than herding a single big blob of units, crazily low unit caps, and... this is a run-on, so I'll put a peroid here.
The way it rubs your face in its "Lowest Common Denominator" design with a 3-tier upkeep system (none, some, and lots, IIRC) reminds me of the stupid US "Terror Alert Level" with random colors in non-rainbow ordering. The resource/upkeep system has NOTHING connecting it to the way upkeep, even simplified abstracted RTS game upkeep, should work. Guess what - if you stop mining, you don't need to pay upkeep! Huh???

Here's a good question. If I pay as much for static defenses as my opponent pays for mobile offenses - and I'm talking melee offensive units, made for cutting flesh, not sieging - who should win when the offenses attack the defenses? In real life, imagine 100 soldiers charging across a minefield to attack 50 soldiers on higher ground in heavy machine gun nests protected by thick concrete walls... it's no contest. In WC3, it's also no contest, but in favor of the attacker, reducing the game to "Mass troops as fast as possible and charge."

My opinion is that Total Annihilation is the best RTS ever, followed by Warlords Battlecry II, Kohan, and finally Starcraft. But you can't see the vast gaps when they're listed like that, so let me show you graphically:

Total Annihilation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warlords Battlecry II
Kohan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Starcraft
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warcraft 2
.
All other popular RTS's (Dune II, C&C, Warcraft, etc)
.
.
.
.
Warcraft 3


Of course, everyone has their own opinion. I've met people who like Xenosaga more than Xenogears because the former has "better graphics" ...

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Woohoo, another TA fan. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Well of course TA sparkles beyond compare. The graphics were and still are good enough and tactics actually work, unlike the vast majority of RTSs were tactics stop at making sure you have some anit-air units when you charge the enemy base.

And of course enough 3rd party add-on units, maps and total conversions to fill dozens of CDs keeps it fresh no matter how much you play it.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Hehe I literally scrounged the internet to get my hands on TA lol and it was well worth it!

I tell yah when my six big bertha cannons unleashed hell on the enemy base it just sent chills down my spine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
(of course putting a fighter squadron and a bunch o' flakker cannons near the BBs was necessary once the enemy started sending bombers).

I like the naval battles too, sort of reminded me of "classical" naval battles yet with a new high tech edge that screamed of kickassness!

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

What you want then is the Vulcan my friend, ahh a multi-barrelled rapid fire big bertha... Truly a wonderous sight. (Energy producion allowing, results may vary, picture for demonstration purposes only and your home is at risk if you don't keep up repayments http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif)

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Hey Saber Cherry, coming over from the Dom2 boards ? Could you go into detail ? I dont really get your post, Warcraft 3 is most probably the most balanced strategygame produced, apart from games where factions have the same units.I could image several ways for each race to defeat another race, their are no unique-über-units.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

TA rules them all indeed, though one game does beat it: TA Core Contigency. What, had you expected me to say *anything* beat TA except TA itself? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Warlords Battlecry was a very nice game too: has anyone played the sequel? (WBIII, oddly enough) It is almost on topic too: WIII and WBIII are only one letter apart, after all.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

But the more money they make, the more they can spend on developing their titles. Quick! Go out and buy World of Warcraft! For the sake of the Protoss!

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

I didn't play a whole lot of Warcraft 3. A friend of mine bought it, and quickly grew disappointed with it. I was surprised that Blizzard would produce a worse RTS after 3 consecutive generations of better RTS's, so next time I visited him, I played it for several hours. We share virtually all the same opinions on games, but occasionally we disagree (I like Kohan, he doesn't; he likes Earthbound and Jedi Knight 2, I don't. But that's about it.). So, I was hoping that when I played WC3, it would be extremely fun, and have subtleties that he had been unable master, making him unjustifiably frustrated.

I started the Orc campaign, and went through the first couple "toy" missions. Once the real missions began, I started to realize that static defense were utterly useless, and using a single-unit-type mass (saving on unnecessary buildings and upgrades) was highly effective. Furthermore, the missions are not strategy missions, but puzzle missions. In Total Annihilation, Kohan, or Warlords Battlecry, there are a huge variety of ways you can decide to win a campaign mission... whereas in WC3 (much more than Starcraft), it felt like there was a "key" that you had to figure out, because all other approaches would fail. In that regard, it was very similar to Command and Conquer, Incubation, and Megaman boss battles. I found those fun at the time, but nowadays I think they're boring.

As for the "No", "Low", and "High" upkeep system... I've never seen such a terribly dumbed-down, contrived mechanism in any game, ever. It just screams at me, "This was added to make the game accessible to people who haven't started Math yet!"

I no longer had any desire to play the game after a few hours, so I stopped. Thus, I don't have enough knowledge to do a formal review of the game, but from what my friend has told me, it doesn't get any better (he toughed it out for maybe 12 hours, and gave me a full run-down). He likes TA for the same reasons I do, and I found the same flaws in WC3 that he had already told me he had found. Thus, I expect that the ones he told me about, but I did not play long enough to find, I would have found had I played as long as he did.

Maybe the "One effective unit per side" was poorly phrased. "One effective unit per side per game" might be more accurate... or "One effective unit per campaign mission." But I have not played nearly as much as you, so maybe Blizzard has progressed from WC2's "Bloodlusted ogres beat everything" to cases where multiple types of units are quite useful?

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

WoW is fun, but highly addictive. More addictive than fun, actually. I don't suggest buying it unless you have a lot of self-control.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Really? It seems like even Starcraft Ghost is dead.

Re: OT: Warcraft 3???
 

Starcraft Ghost is being done out-of-house, and is a console game. Starcraft 2 is being done in-house (but I'm not sure how far along it is). Or so I heard.