I've played the Warcraft 3 demo and I liked it, and since I have some extra cash, I might buy it. The might is because I really want to get a premium account on Tibia, but my dad doesn't like subscribing to things over the internet, so that's a slim chance. (At least I was lucky enough to get a subscription to Byondscape!)
So, to those who do have Warcraft 3, how good is it?
ID:188096
 Jul 12 2004, 6:51 am
|
|
|
Jul 12 2004, 7:15 am
|
|
Teh Governator
 |
Meh, it's pretty good, and a bit of an odd but cool ending...shouldn't cost no more than $30.00 anyhow, so it's pretty cheap. I say buy it.
|
So, to those who do have Warcraft 3, how good is it? It didn't seem all that great to me. There was no challange in the main campaign and mainly consisted of moving your hero from dialog point to dialog point in many of the levels. In all the levels that had you building up a base there wasn't much in the way of enemies actually attempting to destroy your base except in the final level where the computer just largely cheated. Though even the final level was easy enough since to hold out for the required time I just built a lot of the dirt cheap unit build places and spammed the enemy with hordes of dirt cheap units that prevented the enemies from even managing to get close to their victory condition. If you're in the mood for an RTS you should check out Rise of Nations. It is a very awsome real time stratagy with a bunch of cool original ideas to the genre you won't find anywhere else. http://www.microsoft.com/games/riseofnations/ | |
It's,... ok. I personally dislike it. Take a look at Command and Conquer Generals (w/ Expansion) for a real RTS-treat! :D
~Kujila | |
I have Generals, and Exp, but have only played it like 3 times. It looks really cool, but I just havn't felt like learning how it all works. Guess I'm just used to RA2 C&C =P
| |
Warcraft 3 is awesome! I suggest buying it. I did stop playing it for a while because it got a bit -too- hard for me without cheats on the final chapters... But I would definately start playing it again once I had the time. The map editor is absolutely amazing, and the single player mode is extremely fun.
| |
OOooooOoo... This looks like something I would definately like, considering I wanted to make an RTS based like this before but could never get the time to work on something of a big project.
| |
I have Generals, and Exp, but have only played it like 3 times. It looks really cool, but I just havn't felt like learning how it all works. Guess I'm just used to RA2 C&C =P It's a solid RTS game that looks good but didn't really do anything that hasn't been done before. | |
Theodis wrote:
It's a solid RTS game that looks good but didn't really do anything that hasn't been done before. Ahh. The hallmark of EA. | |
Rise of Nations is one of the few games that helped me have respect for the RTS genre. I mean, machine gunners taking out navy ships from the 1700s, whats more cool than that?
| |
Zaole wrote:
I've played the Warcraft 3 demo and I liked it, and since I have some extra cash, I might buy it. The might is because I really want to get a premium account on Tibia, but my dad doesn't like subscribing to things over the internet, so that's a slim chance. (At least I was lucky enough to get a subscription to Byondscape!) I strongly suggest buying it, then buying the expansion set: "Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne". Not only does it include bonus campaigns, but bonus units, bonus multiplayer maps, and even bonus heros. With much more units, this increases the multiplayer fun-factor. Despite what anyone else says, Wacraft III is, hands-down, the most original and most fun game I've ever found. Practically every unit has some sort of skill or feat which benefits from other units, and some units have an even greater effect on others, like footmen versus archers. | |
Warcraft is good for its multiplayer system. I had a backup copy ;) when i first got it and it then realized how good lan play was, so i got a real copy. It has a multiplayer match up system which means if your level 1 your not going to be matched up with a level 30. There are tons of people on it all the time, so your pretty much always assured someone to versus agianst.
| |
Only game I've really ever had that I found to be more fun was Diablo -- which is made by the same company.
| |
Diablo is fun for a few weeks. Untill you've done the storyline and beaten Diablo. Online play doesn't have much going for it. Same storyline as single player. Same monsters to kill. All that is effectively added is a party system and a PvP system. Multiplayer adds some more gameplay time to the package, but I can't understand how people can play for years on end.
The exact same thing goes for Diablo II. And don't get me wrong. I did go out and buy both games upon release because a few weeks of gameplay is more than enough for the money that is spent, but I don't think that quite equals best game ever. Although D2 did break some selling record upon release I think. That accredits something to the series. Losing Bill Roper and the other Blizzard crew members I'm sure will hurt the Diablo franchise. I can't really expect to see much more from the series other than technology. I eman Diablo II didn't bring that much new innovation to the table in the first place even with those guys still working there. And now I'm rambling, so I'll shut up. | |
Losing Bill Roper and the other Blizzard crew members I'm sure will hurt the Diablo franchise. I can't really expect to see much more from the series other than technology. I eman Diablo II didn't bring that much new innovation to the table in the first place even with those guys still working there. There was no innovation in the first place :P. They openly admitted that they were heavily influenced by Nethack which is evident. Diablo 1 and 2 are typical rogue-likes that only take the basic concepts and throw on pretty graphics. They aren't bad but they don't have the depth to keep them interesting nearly as long as the real rogue-likes. | |
Theodis wrote:
There was no innovation in the first place :P. They openly admitted that they were heavily influenced by Nethack which is evident. Diablo 1 and 2 are typical rogue-likes that only take the basic concepts and throw on pretty graphics. They aren't bad but they don't have the depth to keep them interesting nearly as long as the real rogue-likes. Spoken from the never-satisfied, Theodis. | |