Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. #21
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Voon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sultanate of Johore
    Posts
    1,971
    Not as much as Starcraft, from where I came from. Not until DOtA.

    I loved it when I was younger and I still do. I didn't like it at first because I wanted to play Starcraft and nothing else until I played it. I was a sucker for base-building RTS, so it just clicked; even though it's a bit confusing and slow the first time I gave it a try. Then, I learned the how my AI allies build the base on a certain pace depending on their faction and the joy of controlling hero units (leading to more grinding for higher levels for that hero while neglecting the base). And those pretty much made the game particularly excellent, on my book. Sometimes, I wish Blizzard could give some focus to the SP as much as they give to the MP because the campaign on that game was superb.

  2. #22
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Memph View Post
    I always thought Warcraft 3's campaign was it's strong point. Granted I've never been a dedicated RTSer (I suck), but MP seemed to always boil down to Hero level-racing whilst you either built up squillions of defense towers, or a bollock-off great big rush-ready army of as many big beasties as you could.

    There was nothing wrong with it's graphics at the time though. Dated today sure, in hindsight all 3D from that era now looks pretty wank, rather than pretty pretty.
    It already looked wank back then compared to the flavor and function of good 2D sprites. Going to 3D was a selling point, made cutscenes prettier, and produced cost savings, but was a disaster for playability and made the actual game look much worse than it should have. The know-how, technology and power did not exist to make 3D graphics as good. Only in Starcraft 2 did Blizzard finally match 2D. Even then, air units do not control as well on top of the 3D terrain.

  3. #23
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by victory View Post
    It already looked wank back then compared to the flavor and function of good 2D sprites. Going to 3D was a selling point, made cutscenes prettier, and produced cost savings, but was a disaster for playability and made the actual game look much worse than it should have. The know-how, technology and power did not exist to make 3D graphics as good. Only in Starcraft 2 did Blizzard finally match 2D. Even then, air units do not control as well on top of the 3D terrain.
    When Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos was launched, it was pretty much state of the art of modern RTS? I don't understand what you're on about. Show me a game with similar or better graphics at its release date, I challenge thee.

    I played Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, but not a lot of Warcraft II, nor its expansions. I remember the day I got my hands on the game, sweet baby jesus was the cinematics some of the most wonderful I'd ever seen in a video game. It was mind blowing and so was the campaign. None of this compared to logging on to Battle.net though and find yourself a community of players evolving and the never-dying modding scene that began swiftly to introduce maps of all sorts to the Custom Games crowd. Games such as LoL, HoN, DotA2, Sanctum, Dungeon Defenders had been nothing if it had not been for the WCIII Map Editor. All those games spawned from community projects.

  4. #24
    Lesser Hivemind Node Bhazor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    734
    @Victory

    3D? To save money? You're kidding... right?

    No Warcraft 3 looked gorgeous. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it was a travesty.

    It also played amazingly. It felt completely fresh in that it didn't play exactly the same as its 8 year old predecessor. Something that can't be said for Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.
    Last edited by Bhazor; 27-03-2012 at 03:29 PM.

  5. #25
    Lesser Hivemind Node Drinking with Skeletons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    715
    It's not that D3 is different, it's that it's different in ways that are less complex and engaging than its predecessor. Warcraft III is considerably more complex than Warcraft II, if for no other reason than the factions are very different. Plenty of the mechanics are the same, it's recognizably Warcraft, but there's no sense of things being stripped out or simplified, nor is there much stagnation. Can the same be said for D3?

  6. #26
    Lesser Hivemind Node Bhazor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    734
    @Drinking with Skeletons
    It's worth remembering the biggest bone of contention regarding Diablo 3 is the always on DRM and the real money auction house. The gameplay issues, there have been many valid complaints raised by the beta players, are peripheral compared to those elephants in the room.

    My biggest fear for the quality is the number of reiterations it's gone through. I mean cutting huge portions of your game out (PvP, the original rune system) less than six months before release? At least two project lead changes? To me that doesn't show a well organised team refining the minutae of their product. To me that shows people desperately rushing to meet a deadline.

    But nevermind. I won't be able to play it anyway so it doesn't matter to me.

  7. #27
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhazor View Post
    @Drinking with Skeletons
    It's worth remembering the biggest bone of contention regarding Diablo 3 is the always on DRM and the real money auction house. The gameplay issues, there have been many valid complaints raised by the beta players, are peripheral compared to those elephants in the room.
    Which is true, but utterly crazy. The gameplay elements of the game are only a minor point.

  8. #28
    Activated Node PoulWrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Aarhus
    Posts
    39
    I played loads of Warcraft, Warcraft 2 and Starcraft, but to this day I've played 2 games of Warcraft 3. It just didn't look appealing.

  9. #29
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhazor View Post
    A key thing to remember is that Warcraft one and two weren't that impressive, they were both pretty generic and limited.
    Erm, not by the standards of the time. For a start, I don't think there'd been a fantasy RTS prior to Warcraft 1; all we'd had were sci fi.

  10. #30
    Lesser Hivemind Node Drinking with Skeletons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhazor View Post
    @Drinking with Skeletons
    It's worth remembering the biggest bone of contention regarding Diablo 3 is the always on DRM and the real money auction house. The gameplay issues, there have been many valid complaints raised by the beta players, are peripheral compared to those elephants in the room.

    My biggest fear for the quality is the number of reiterations it's gone through. I mean cutting huge portions of your game out (PvP, the original rune system) less than six months before release? At least two project lead changes? To me that doesn't show a well organised team refining the minutae of their product. To me that shows people desperately rushing to meet a deadline.

    But nevermind. I won't be able to play it anyway so it doesn't matter to me.
    I was deliberately trying to pick on the gameplay concerns rather than the (odious) DRM. That horse has been beaten to death, and it's not going away, so I might as well move on to other valid points.

    Additionally, the OP seemed to be asking about possible mechanical differences. There certainly weren't any bolted-on online bits from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3 (unless you count the half-complete Orc campaign from Frozen Throne, which now seems rather portentous).

  11. #31
    Lesser Hivemind Node Bhazor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    734
    @Archonsod

    Mechanically they were very generic. Especially compared to the stuff that came out at a similar time like TA or C&C Red Alert. The first two Warcraft were pretty unremarkable and didn't change anything in a meaningful way. Unlike say Warcraft 3 or Diablo which basically invented their own genres and are still widely considered among the best in their field.
    I'd say Diablo is the game that earned Blizzard their peak reputation that lasted up to the unambitious but polished and reheated Starcraft 2. Before Diablo their output was hardly inspiring, with the exception of Lost Vikings.

    @ Drinking with Skeletons
    I'm sorry but for many the DRM is a key part of the gameplay. In that with that DRM in place I can't play it. Thats pretty bad gameplay there I'd say.

    I'm not in the beta so I can't comment on the gameplay of the game itself. But I will say the cash auction shop sounds like a big mistake if they were hoping for any kind of balance in the PvP component. I also can't begin to imagine how much worse account hacking, bot running, multiboxing cheaters will be now there's a guarenteed cash payoff for collecting the loot. People complaining about the public servers in Diablo 2 will be in for a surprise with the new system I imagine.
    Last edited by Bhazor; 27-03-2012 at 10:17 PM.

  12. #32
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhazor View Post
    Mechanically they were very generic. Especially compared to the stuff that came out at a similar time like TA or C&C Red Alert.
    Warcraft came out in 1994. That's two years after Dune II (in fact IIRC it was the first post-Dune II RTS) and a year before Command & Conquer. Ignoring the fact that it's probably impossible to be generic when your genre only has one other entry, it did in fact add several things to the RTS - Units with abilities (none of that in Dune II), upgrades for units and buildings and perhaps most importantly, multiplayer.
    Unlike say Warcraft 3 or Diablo
    Neither of which changed anything. Diablo was simply Rogue moved to real time and given prettier graphics. Warcraft 3 similarly had nothing new - the RPG/RTS thing was already done by Warlords Battlecry four years earlier, experience and items had been in Tzar : Burden of the Crown three years earlier. About the only thing WC3 had going for it was it's ability to leverage the already large multiplayer community Blizzard had built up thanks to WC2 and Starcraft. Without that, it would probably have vanished into obscurity in the RTS flood of the time.
    I'd say Diablo is the game that earned Blizzard their peak reputation
    Diablo II is the second biggest selling PC game of all time IIRC. Unfortunately it was also the point Blizzard stopped innovating.

  13. #33
    Lesser Hivemind Node Bhazor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    734
    @ Archonsod

    Ahh my mistake. I remember it coming out in 1996 as I played it on my Uncles Mac. For 1994 it is impressive even if it has aged horribly. If Warcraft 3 had been based as closely to that as Starcraft 2 had been to Starcraft I imagine no one would be very impressed.

    I still say "Rogue moved to real time" as you put it is still a pretty big innovation though.

  14. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    936
    Warcraft 3 was well liked because it was a sensible, good and improving shift in gameplay, that was designed to seperate the Warcraft franchise from the Starcraft franchise.

    Diablo 3 is just... Not. It's schizophrenic in design and focus, and it shows a distinct lack of understanding what makes Diablo-clones fun.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •