PDA

View Full Version : Warcraft III


Vincent
08-07-2002, 21:17:53
I got it and played the first 4 missions. First impressions (SP only):

The graphics are very cute and very fast on my old PC (1024*768, 750Mhz, ATI Radeon 7500), I like the slight comic style (running movements of the charcaters).
The game seems quite similar to WC2 or SC, same interface. The first missions are very heavy on quests and exploring maps, scripted, a lot of story. IMO too much adventure spirit and too few building/strategy, but it's very well done. I'd say most of the players already know WC/SC and play it for the MP strategy part, so it's a different aspect of the game. Seems to be very easy at normal level, I had no problems so far and never had to reload. The AI wasn't challenging so far
And, as usual, very nice cutscenes.
BUT
It didn't make me throw away my Dungeon Siege CD. WC3 has to wait until I'm over with DS, and I don't mean Darkstar (maybe I do)

Funkodrom
08-07-2002, 22:11:31
I didn't like WCII multi player much but the single player was hellish.

Mightytree
08-07-2002, 22:45:07
I don't have it and don't intend to buy it either. What I've seen and heard of it disappoints. I'm sure it's an excellent game, like all Warcrafts were. It's just that when I first read something about it 2 years or so ago, it was announced as a revolution to gaming. It was supposed to be a real RPG/RTS mix ... and what has become of it? The 1000th usual RTS with a bit of RPG added. It's a pity Blizzard didn't have the courage to try something new. That really sucks.

Fistandantilus
08-07-2002, 22:47:40
ehm... Diablo 2 was something new?? Did you like it?

Mightytree
08-07-2002, 22:53:35
I liked D2 because I never really played D1 much, especially not MP. It was something new to me. And nobody ever said D2 would be something new ... but WC3 was announced as the super revolution back then.

Fistandantilus
08-07-2002, 23:23:45
Same with me.

Besides I have never really thought it could be a super revolution and I'm disappointed too. But many will like it no matter what.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
08-07-2002, 23:32:46
Diablo2 wasn't something new. Very derivative of Angband, and third person isometric games are a dime a dozen.

But it is fun :)

Mightytree
08-07-2002, 23:41:25
Well, I didn't think that either. It's just that Blizzard originally intended it to be a real RPG/RTS genre mix ... but apparently at some point they got the idea it would be a too big risk, financially mainly. So they chose the safe option ... make it a standard RTS with some RPG elements to satisfy those who were waiting for something new.

If you like WC2 or RTS games in general, I'm sure you'll be perfectly happy with it, it's just that IMO you could also stick to WC2, or even C&C, because that's basically the same game. It's the same with Civ 2 and 3 ... the same games with some minor differences, just to give people a reason to buy it.

Shining1
09-07-2002, 00:47:40
Mightytree: Weeeeellll...

The actual reason, according to Blizzard, that they changed anything, was because as an actual MP game their ideas sucked ass.

Your arguement seems to be "WarcraftIII was supposed to be a revolutionary medieval game with gay pink Minotaurs and little purple elves, but then they changed it back to something less gayassed therefore they suck for making a fun playable game instead of instead of something bizarre."

Much of what I've read on the forums so far indicates that this is about as different from Starcraft as you could hope for, especially all the stories of people taking 13 key units and wiping the map clean with them. Starcraft revolved around maxing your resources and unit count as fast as possible and just maybe occasionally doing something tactical. WarcraftIII is much closer to a 50/50 tactical/strategy mix.

The whole reason Blizzard has turned into a company capable of earning 4.5 million preorders is that they make games that are fun. If you look at their product list there is NOTHING ANYWHERE that remotely qualifies as 'revolution'.

Warcraft: They took the Warhammer Orcs/Human mythos, planted it in a replica Dune2 engine (scarily similar screenshots have been seen), and released it.

WarcraftII: Warcraft with very slightly better graphics and gameplay improvements.

Diablo/Diablo2: ANGBAND in realtime (ANG is turnbased, right?) with pretty graphics (in the first game, at least).

Starcraft: Warhammer 40000 story with updated graphics engine and gameplay geared towards quick battles with really massive armies.

WarcraftIII: 3D WarcraftII with the heros component of Starcraft fully realised. Much slower battles and more emphasis on using units well instead of making a lot of them. (Mike would REALLY HATE this game!:D)


Ergo, Blizzard does not innovate much, if at all. They just refine and polish ideas until they gleam - which seems to work pretty well.

Funkodrom
09-07-2002, 09:16:21
You are right about me hating it. They've taken all the really annoying stuff that I hated from WCII and made an entire game out of it.

Sean
09-07-2002, 11:04:02
Originally posted by Shining1
The whole reason Blizzard has turned into a company capable of earning 4.5 million preorders is that they make games that are fun.
Oh good, the Darkstar argument. If it sells lots, it must be good. There are loads of fun games out there, many of them RTS. Metal Fatigue was fun. Using the number of pre-orders is like using the number of pre-bookings for Star Wars Episode I to show what a good film-maker George Lucas is.

If you look at their product list there is NOTHING ANYWHERE that remotely qualifies as 'revolution'.
I don’t get how this is supposed to be a good thing.

Starcraft: Warhammer 40000 story with updated graphics engine and gameplay geared towards quick battles with really massive armies.
Really massive :hmm:?

WarcraftIII: 3D WarcraftII with the heros component of Starcraft fully realised. Much slower battles and more emphasis on using units well instead of making a lot of them.
So it’s a hybrid between a lame party system and an underdeveloped strategy background.

Ergo, Blizzard does not innovate much, if at all. They just refine and polish ideas until they gleam - which seems to work pretty well.
I would be happy with this, if it were true, but what they do in my experience is re-make old games with pretty graphics, and release them late. This gives some impressionable people the idea that they are ‘polished’. Was Starcraft polished to the point of imbalance then?

Funkodrom
09-07-2002, 11:20:18
Z-Steel Soldiers was good and innovative but no-one played that. :(

I even played and enjoyed a lot of the single player missions which is unheard of for me.

Venom
09-07-2002, 12:26:04
Nobody believes anything you say though.

Fistandantilus
09-07-2002, 12:55:32
Was Starcraft polished to the point of imbalance then?
:lol: So true.

Mightytree
09-07-2002, 15:52:09
Mightytree: Weeeeellll...

The actual reason, according to Blizzard, that they changed anything, was because as an actual MP game their ideas sucked ass.

Your arguement seems to be "WarcraftIII was supposed to be a revolutionary medieval game with gay pink Minotaurs and little purple elves, but then they changed it back to something less gayassed therefore they suck for making a fun playable game instead of instead of something bizarre."

Hey, a medieval game with gay pink minotaurs and purple elves can be fun too. It's not like if something is new and innovative it can't be as much fun as the established RTS :sleep: . I didn't expect it to be revolutionary at all though ... but I was surely hoping Blizzard would pleasantly surprise me. They didn't. But I admit you can't really blame Blizzard for it ... they're just doing what brings them the most profit. As long as people buy that, why change.

Much of what I've read on the forums so far indicates that this is about as different from Starcraft as you could hope for, especially all the stories of people taking 13 key units and wiping the map clean with them. Starcraft revolved around maxing your resources and unit count as fast as possible and just maybe occasionally doing something tactical. WarcraftIII is much closer to a 50/50 tactical/strategy mix.

I admit the closest I've ever come to playing an RTS is watching someone else play. But if I had to compare C&C1 and WC3, I'd say it's basically the same game with WC3 having a bit more eye candy.

The whole reason Blizzard has turned into a company capable of earning 4.5 million preorders is that they make games that are fun. If you look at their product list there is NOTHING ANYWHERE that remotely qualifies as 'revolution'.

See Seans reply.

Ergo, Blizzard does not innovate much, if at all. They just refine and polish ideas until they gleam - which seems to work pretty well.

How is that a good thing? It only works well because people are dumb enough to buy the games.

One final word ... what sucks about Blizzard is not that they didn't make an innovative game, but that they were dumb enough to announce WC as something revolutionary, and then didn't stick to it. That is so lame.

Funkodrom
09-07-2002, 15:53:45
Worked for Firaxis with Civ III.

Fistandantilus
09-07-2002, 15:59:06
I have bought Civ3. So it seems I'm definitely dumb enough to buy Warcraft3. :nervous:

Funkodrom
09-07-2002, 16:01:27
:D

Shining1
10-07-2002, 07:39:04
Sean:
Oh good, the Darkstar argument.

What's wrong with that?:D

If it sells lots, it must be good. There are loads of fun games out there, many of them RTS. Metal Fatigue was fun. Using the number of pre-orders is like using the number of pre-bookings for Star Wars Episode I to show what a good film-maker George Lucas is.

And compared to nearly all the other dreary crap out there, he is. Sorry Sean, democracy is a very powerful arguement to start from - and few, if any other RTSs in the last two years have managed to get 4.5M sales, let alone pre-orders. If they're that fun, why aren't people playing them?

So itís a hybrid between a lame party system and an underdeveloped strategy background.

Jury's still out as to whether it works or not. Certainly, I can't comment on that for a good while.

I donít get how this is supposed to be a good thing.

My point was purely that Blizzard = evolution, not revolution. So expecting revolution from them was a bit optimisitic.

I would be happy with this, if it were true, but what they do in my experience is re-make old games with pretty graphics, and release them late. This gives some impressionable people the idea that they are Ďpolishedí. Was Starcraft polished to the point of imbalance then?

Er, have you ever played it? Which particular imbalance are you talking about?


MightyTree:
Hey, a medieval game with gay pink minotaurs and purple elves can be fun too. It's not like if something is new and innovative it can't be as much fun as the established RTS.

Apparently it can't be, or they would have gone with that idea, wouldn't they. (They did leave the purple elves in, after all...:D)

I didn't expect it to be revolutionary at all though ... but I was surely hoping Blizzard would pleasantly surprise me. They didn't. But I admit you can't really blame Blizzard for it ... they're just doing what brings them the most profit. As long as people buy that, why change.

If you didn't expect it to be revolutionary, what are you complaining about?

I admit the closest I've ever come to playing an RTS is watching someone else play. But if I had to compare C&C1 and WC3, I'd say it's basically the same game with WC3 having a bit more eye candy.

Yep, and Diablo and Dungeon siege are just the same game too. Or Halflife and Serious Sam. Or Zork and Monkey IslandIII. They're the same genre, MT, but they're not the same game. Except to the ignorant.

How is that a good thing? It only works well because people are dumb enough to buy the games.

So the only good game in any genre is the absolute first one that gets made? How come you aren't still playing Diablo then?

Otherwise, you don't agree with the idea that you can take an existing idea and improve it. A model T ford and a late model Ferrari are both cars, after all. Is the model T better?

Funko:
Worked for Firaxis with Civ III.

It did? How many people actually bought that game in the end?

Fistandantilus:
I have bought Civ3. So it seems I'm definitely dumb enough to buy Warcraft3.

Listen to all the cynical cool people here, and you will become wiser;). After all, it's more important to whinge and bitch about something you haven't played than to enjoy yourself playing something.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 08:37:52
If there are loads of good bands out there why are people listening to Britney and Nickelback?

1. They don't get to hear about them 'cause they aren't actively looking for music so they can only hear about what's being mass marketed at them by the biggest companies.
2. It's popular so their friends also have it it.
3. It's easy to comprehend and unchallenging so it has wide appeal.
4. It's something that's seen as being cool.

That doesn't mean that every so often an absolutely classic album will be released by a band and both be good and popular but something just being popular doesn't mean it's good. It's exactly the same with games. 4.5 million preorders means nothing about this game. It means a lot of people liked StarCraft and there's been a huge amount of hype. If you enjoy playing it then great! I know how much you were looking forward to it and I hope it meets or exceeds your expectations but that, sadly, will have nothing to do with how many people buy it.

I can't judge WCIII fairly because it encompases all the elements of RTS games that I don't like.

I don't know how many copies of CivIII they sold but it's still in the charts here.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 09:20:24
Originally posted by Shining1
My point was purely that Blizzard = evolution, not revolution. So expecting revolution from them was a bit optimisitic.

Well, it wasn't announced as evolution though. Or maybe it was just a typo.


Apparently it can't be, or they would have gone with that idea, wouldn't they. (They did leave the purple elves in, after all...:D)

They didn't do something new because they didn't have the guts. That has nothing to do with how much fun something is. They can't foresee that.

If you didn't expect it to be revolutionary, what are you complaining about?

That:

"What sucks about Blizzard is not that they didn't make an innovative game, but that they were dumb enough to announce WC as something revolutionary, and then didn't stick to it. That is so lame."

Yep, and Diablo and Dungeon siege are just the same game too. Or Halflife and Serious Sam. Or Zork and Monkey IslandIII. They're the same genre, MT, but they're not the same game. Except to the ignorant.

Call me ignorant then, but (as much as I hate to admit it) Diablo and DS are extremely similar. I don't know Serious Sam or Zork.

So the only good game in any genre is the absolute first one that gets made? How come you aren't still playing Diablo then?

Otherwise, you don't agree with the idea that you can take an existing idea and improve it. A model T ford and a late model Ferrari are both cars, after all. Is the model T better?

I think RTS games have a lot less new stuff to them than for example D2 had compared to D1. I don't want every game to be revolutionary ... I just want it to have enough new stuff to be legitimately sold as a new game. Not the case with WC3 ... it's as much WC2.5 as Civ3 is Civ2.5.

Listen to all the cynical cool people here, and you will become wiser;). After all, it's more important to whinge and bitch about something you haven't played than to enjoy yourself playing something.

How do you know I'm not playing something?

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:21:52
Maybe he meant me, I rarely play games.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:22:23
Well rarely PC games these days. Still play a lot of Pro Evo Soccer which is the best game in the world.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 09:25:18
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Maybe he meant me, I rarely play games.

He should've said that then.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 09:28:58
One more thing, Shiny. WC3 is by no means my only target, it's just a good example because it has been released just now. C&C had the same problems. C&C2 and 3 were both really C&C1.5, Civ3 was Civ2.5. There are many examples. It's just the most apparent in the RTS genre.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:32:18
Half Life, Serious Sam, Laser Squad Nemesis and AoK being the exceptions. They were all good and I've played them a lot. Even got 7 or 8 MP games of AoK online which was cool. Didn't win one but I was improving.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:34:38
Originally posted by Mightytree
One more thing, Shiny. WC3 is by no means my only target, it's just a good example because it has been released just now. C&C had the same problems. C&C2 and 3 were both really C&C1.5, Civ3 was Civ2.5. There are many examples. It's just the most apparent in the RTS genre.

Yeah, I didn't get any Command and Conquer game after Tiberium Sun 'cause that was so shit. Was tempted by the Dune game but in the end it just looked like more of the same and I used to really like C&C unlike Warcraft.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:39:20
I don't know why I can't play PC games anymore, it's really, really annoying. :( I can't work out if it's just 'cause all the games really are boring or if it's me that's changed.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 09:47:21
I think I'm just a miserable old git and games were better when I was a kid and we had proper snow.

King_Ghidra
10-07-2002, 10:23:31
you're certainly very good at the 'spamming this thread' game :)

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 10:25:23
I'm not spamming I'm pouring out my heart.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 10:28:42
And I'm really jealous 'cause everyone seems to have time to play games. Where does it come from?

Shining1
10-07-2002, 10:36:03
They didn't do something new because they didn't have the guts. That has nothing to do with how much fun something is. They can't foresee that.

Really? So they didn't spend a year and a half sitting down playing it and working on it and then deciding to go back to a more strategy type feel for it?

MT, OF COURSE they could see if it was fun or not. They were playing for ages before they changed it. And it didn't work for them.


"What sucks about Blizzard is not that they didn't make an innovative game, but that they were dumb enough to announce WC as something revolutionary, and then didn't stick to it. That is so lame."

Yeah, well, people tend to ask questions of popular game developers about their current project. And some developers answer those questions fully and honestly, and show people what they've come up with so far. And sometimes it has to be changed because it's not really all that good when you take a cold hard look at it. If only the rest of the games industry was so lame, there might be a hell of a lot more fun and popular games released.


Call me ignorant then, but (as much as I hate to admit it) Diablo and DS are extremely similar. I don't know Serious Sam or Zork.

Yet you've previously defended the quality of Diablo2 to the hilt whilst trashing Dungeon Siege. So if they're extremely similar, yet you love one but hate the other, there still must be some important differences...

I think RTS games have a lot less new stuff to them than for example D2 had compared to D1. I don't want every game to be revolutionary ... I just want it to have enough new stuff to be legitimately sold as a new game. Not the case with WC3 ... it's as much WC2.5 as Civ3 is Civ2.5.

* 3D engine
* Heros with experience system
* long battles with close micromanagement
* 4 completely unique races
* Battle.net + improvements to player management side

Explain to me just exactly what a game has to do to quality as a fully new game. Because it sounds like you're saying that it has to develop an entirely new genre to count.

How do you know I'm not playing something? [/B]

General comment to all you people who are complaining about a game you haven't played and aren't planning to. At least when we were all bashing the Sims we'd had a go at it...

One more thing, Shiny. WC3 is by no means my only target, it's just a good example because it has been released just now. C&C had the same problems. C&C2 and 3 were both really C&C1.5, Civ3 was Civ2.5. There are many examples. It's just the most apparent in the RTS genre.

Gods, for my sake, let's hope WarIII is not another C&C2. I take umbrage at the two even being mentioned in the same paragraph...

Mike:
I think I'm just a miserable old git and games were better when I was a kid and we had proper snow.

WarcraftIII and DungeonSiege have way better snow than Red Alert:p

Sean
10-07-2002, 10:52:14
Originally posted by Shining1
And compared to nearly all the other dreary crap out there, he is. Sorry Sean, democracy is a very powerful arguement to start from - and few, if any other RTSs in the last two years have managed to get 4.5M sales, let alone pre-orders. If they're that fun, why aren't people playing them?
That is the worst argument in the world, as Mike has pointed out, and was pointed out several times in Darkstar’s Sims thread.

Er, have you ever played it? Which particular imbalance are you talking about?
Two words: Zergling. Rush.
Two more: Zealot. Rush.
Could it be that I am talking about the rushing imbalance?

MT, OF COURSE they could see if it was fun or not. They were playing for ages before they changed it. And it didn't work for them.
Strangely, game developers/publishers aren’t in the best position to judge their own work. Saying OF COURSE isn’t going to change the fact that it is very difficult to objectively review something that:
a) you are working on and
b) you don’t really believe in.

Your second point sounds like you are talking about Black & White. ‘It was so popular, and all the magazines loved it, and the developers were honest enough to tell us what they had in mind but then didn’t follow through, and that is WHAT MAKES IT GREAT!’

Yet you've previously defended the quality of Diablo2 to the hilt whilst trashing Dungeon Siege. So if they're extremely similar, yet you love one but hate the other, there still must be some important differences...
Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA are extremely similar. They have the same rules, roughly the same teams and players, etc. It’s all down to feel. PES is superb, FIFA is not.

* 3D engine
* Heros with experience system
* long battles with close micromanagement
* 4 completely unique races
* Battle.net + improvements to player management side
3D engine is new in RTS? Better tell that to Cavedog, Pumpkin, et al who were using them in RTS years ago.
Experience system? Tiberium Sun and a host of others had that in one form or another.
Long battles with close micromanagement? So everything takes really long to kill?
Battle.net, well, you’ve got me there. I can’t think of one non-Blizzard game that uses Battle.net. Kudos.

Oh, an another example of Derivative Sequel Mania, because we are being so unfair in just picking on Warcraft: Final Fantasy.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 10:53:00
Yet you've previously defended the quality of Diablo2 to the hilt whilst trashing Dungeon Siege. So if they're extremely similar, yet you love one but hate the other, there still must be some important differences...

IIRC part of the reason he was trashing it because it was so similar.

SSX Tricky has better snow than both and looks like more fun.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 11:04:14
There are no non-Blizzard games that use Battle.net because Blizzard owns it.

I trashed DS because it has a diablo-esque story (meaning, no story) and the combat system of BG2. That's like having the brain of Van Damme and the body of Einstein. You'd rather have it the other way around.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:06:23
That is the worst argument in the world, as Mike has pointed out, and was pointed out several times in Darkstars Sims thread.

I was pretty sure Mike lost that fight... certainly, you'll have to explain it to me again.


Two words: Zergling. Rush.
Two more: Zealot. Rush.
Could it be that I am talking about the rushing imbalance?

Could it be that you suck?:D If you lose to those kind of tactics, you certainly aren't qualified to be talking about the quality of the game balance.


Strangely, game developers/publishers aren't in the best position to judge their own work. Saying OF COURSE isn't going to change the fact that it is very difficult to objectively review something that:
a) you are working on and
b) you don't really believe in.

So far we only have MTs word they didn't believe it. Really, it's NOT difficult after a years work or so to judge whether something is good or not, but the real gutsy move is to throw much of that work away and start on it again to make something good.

Your second point sounds like you are talking about Black & White. It was so popular, and all the magazines loved it, and the developers were honest enough to tell us what they had in mind but then didn't follow through, and that is WHAT MAKES IT GREAT

Rephrase that so I can get the vaguest clue what you are talking about.

Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA are extremely similar. They have the same rules, roughly the same teams and players, etc. It's all down to feel. PES is superb, FIFA is not.

Yes, but what makes the FEEL? That, surely, is about the most important thing you can get in a game, or any entertainment activity.


3D engine is new in RTS? Better tell that to Cavedog, Pumpkin, et al who were using them in RTS years ago.
Experience system? Tiberium Sun and a host of others had that in one form or another.
Long battles with close micromanagement? So everything takes really long to kill?
Battle.net, well, you’ve got me there. I can’t think of one non-Blizzard game that uses Battle.net. Kudos.

AHEM. WARCRAFT2 vs. WARCRAFT3. This had nothing to do with anything else.


Oh, an another example of Derivative Sequel Mania, because we are being so unfair in just picking on Warcraft: Final Fantasy.

Or ultima, or any other great series that millions of people loved, right?:)

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:08:03
Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA are extremely similar. They have the same rules, roughly the same teams and players, etc. Itís all down to feel. PES is superb, FIFA is not.

Great call, go PES!

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:09:42
MT: I agree with your analysis. But that does rather mean that there is one important aspect between Diablo2 and Dungeon Siege that is extremely similar: One is good fun, the other isn't.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:09:46
Originally posted by Shining1
I was pretty sure Mike lost that fight... certainly, you'll have to explain it to me again.

I made some really good points that showed what I meant, as far as I can see you never responded to them. How did I lose exactly?

See here:
http://www.counterglow.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144719#post144719

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:14:15
Mike: I'm not sure if the state of the games industry is the same as the state of the music record industry, but there's probably a bit of that in it. On the other hand, I AM a real RTS fan and I haven't seen anything recently that inspired me to give up Starcraft and AoK. Until this year, on hearing about WarcraftIII, AoM, and C&C Generals.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:15:48
Originally posted by Shining1
I was pretty sure Mike lost that fight... certainly, you'll have to explain it to me again.
Then read his analogy with music again, seeing as you didn’t respond the first time.

Could it be that you suck?:D If you lose to those kind of tactics, you certainly aren't qualified to be talking about the quality of the game balance.
So you are saying that, in fact, the large numbers of people losing to rushing tactics was not a fault of the game, but because all of the players who were new to it sucked? And you were doing such a good job of being the ‘games should just be fun’ guy, too.

So far we only have MTs word they didn't believe it. Really, it's NOT difficult after a years work or so to judge whether something is good or not, but the real gutsy move is to throw much of that work away and start on it again to make something good.
No, that’s just because you like Blizzard. Duke Nukem Forever is a mistake, yes? Prey was a mistake, yes?

But again, you have just said it is NOT difficult. You haven’t said why. Certainly I find it very difficult to judge my own work objectively.

Rephrase that so I can get the vaguest clue what you are talking about.
You: ‘some developers answer those questions fully and honestly, and show people what they've come up with so far. And sometimes it has to be changed because it's not really all that good when you take a cold hard look at it. If only the rest of the games industry was so lame, there might be a hell of a lot more fun and popular games released.’

That sounds like you were talking about Black & White, another game that failed to live up to promises, by a superstar developer, that was hyped to high heaven.

Yes, but what makes the FEEL? That, surely, is about the most important thing you can get in a game, or any entertainment activity.
Yes. So? They are still essentially the same game.

AHEM. WARCRAFT2 vs. WARCRAFT3. This had nothing to do with anything else.
Purely hypothetical situation for you, here. Famous developer releases popular game. Other developers improve upon game. Famous developer releases new game that adds some of those improvements and waits for the money to roll in. Who am I talking about?

Or ultima, or any other great series that millions of people loved, right?
Nope. Between Ultimas there were some significant changes, like the Marios or the Zeldas or the System Shocks.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:17:34
Originally posted by Shining1
Mike: I'm not sure if the state of the games industry is the same as the state of the music record industry, but there's probably a bit of that in it. On the other hand, I AM a real RTS fan and I haven't seen anything recently that inspired me to give up Starcraft and AoK. Until this year, on hearing about WarcraftIII, AoM, and C&C Generals.
Oh, Christ, the I am a REAL fan thing. Next you’ll be challenging us to a MP game to settle the argument ;).

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:23:27
So you haven't seen anything to get excited other than sequels to other games that you already liked? That's exactly the point. Games companies know that people want more of the same, slight evolutions and we'll buy them so that's what they give us.

What games have I got on my PS2? Wipeout Fusion, Pro Evo Soccer, Tony Hawks 3 (and Crazy Taxi but that doesn't fit my argument) so they are right. I can't argue. I think that's why I'm so dissillusioned though.

There must be original games out there but where? How do I find them? Unlike the music industry where it's reasonably cheap to make and record music in your spare time it's hard with entire games, the closest you get is mods and some of them are great some terrible.

Films, music, games, everything is so... commercial. Maybe I've just lost touch with where all the interesting stuff is happening in computer games, wouldn't surprise me. There have been so many disappointments after massive hype that it's hard to buy anything, especially in games, because I'm expecting it to be disappointing before I try it. I'm hyped out.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 11:23:32
General comment to all you people who are complaining about a game you haven't played and aren't planning to. At least when we were all bashing the Sims we'd had a go at it...

Well, I know I won't like it as I don't like RTS in general. Why buy it then? Just because I then have your permission to trash it?

You may have noticed by now that this is not only about WC or Blizzard, it's a general thing in the game business. You rather make the 100643rd sequel of a succesful game than try something new, or if you don't want to make a sequel you just give it a different name. The game stays the same. That's what I find really annoying. And one good example of that is IMHO WC3. It doesn't really have anything to do with trashing one particular game or Blizzard. Look at the SimCity series, 2000 was good ... 3000 was the same. Or the NBA Live and FIFA series ... probably two of the most annoying examples. Settlers 1 was good ... 2-4 were trash. The list goes on.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:26:51
re: losing to shit tactics. The worst thing about RTS at the moment is that you have to play full time to beat anyone. That sucks. There's also rarely any kind of handicap system (unless there's one I haven't heard of?) where you can set the game up to make it more challenging for both players. The equivalent of playing Euro All Stars against Saudi Arabia in Pro Evo Soccer.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:27:34
It’s really easy to win as a shit team against a bad player, though.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:29:00
True but if the player is competent but not as good as you it can make the matches a lot closer and it's hard to improve if you are losing 8-0 and never get the ball.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:30:31
If there are loads of good bands out there why are people listening to Britney and Nickelback?

Because 12 year old girls and 13 year old boys have very different music tastes to you perhaps?

1. They don't get to hear about them 'cause they aren't actively looking for music so they can only hear about what's being mass marketed at them by the biggest companies.

Yess... I've actually seen a commerical for WarcraftIII on New Zealand T.V. The mass marketing that you get for Music (rigged charts et al) doesn't apply to games... yet.

2. It's popular so their friends also have it it.

That's the way, after all. No-one wants to play the second best RTS game available, or the fifth best, etc. If something's definitely better, everyone is going to play that.

3. It's easy to comprehend and unchallenging so it has wide appeal.

Yeah right. Ergo because Halflife was so different and challenging to the traditional format everyone was too scared to play it. Oh, wait, no, they queued for it in stores, didn't they. What a big crap bollocksy arguement. There's nothing wrong with a game being easy to play (hardly a criticism I've ever heard of RTS games, btw) so long as it works, but the complexity is not going to interfere with it's success.

4. It's something that's seen as being cool.

M3 L33T! I vvi11 0wnij u @11!

That doesn't mean that every so often an absolutely classic album will be released by a band and both be good and popular but something just being popular doesn't mean it's good.

The chances are a lot better in the case of computer games, however.

It's exactly the same with games. 4.5 million preorders means nothing about this game. It means a lot of people liked StarCraft and there's been a huge amount of hype.

And Warcraft, and Diablo, and Diablo2, and everything else they've made. Hype is something music or movie companies put out to sell a product. This is more reputation.

If you enjoy playing it then great! I know how much you were looking forward to it and I hope it meets or exceeds your expectations but that, sadly, will have nothing to do with how many people buy it.

Nothing? Really, that's so cynical it's naive.

Perhaps true in the case of music, not nearly so true in the case of games. Daikatana, or Black and White, for instance, didn't last all that long. Starcraft is STILL in the stores even now. Good games keep on selling long past the initial rush, and that's where the real money comes from.

I can't judge WCIII fairly because it encompases all the elements of RTS games that I don't like.

Fair enough.

I don't know how many copies of CivIII they sold but it's still in the charts here.

Well, perhaps people liked it because they'd never played it before:).

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:36:38
Yess... I've actually seen a commerical for WarcraftIII on New Zealand T.V. The mass marketing that you get for Music (rigged charts et al) doesn't apply to games... yet.
Yes it does, and it’s called games journalism. See my post in the LotR thread.

That's the way, after all. No-one wants to play the second best RTS game available, or the fifth best, etc. If something's definitely better, everyone is going to play that.
Again, in the face of all evidence. FIFA outsells PES, and yet PES is definitely better to anyone who has played both.

Also, best? Metal Fatigue was best, in a way, but it depends on what kind of game you want. I very much doubt that Warcraft III could beat it on number of gameplay levels (literally: underground, surface, and orbit) or number of bits to make your robots out of.

Perhaps true in the case of music, not nearly so true in the case of games. Daikatana, or Black and White, for instance, didn't last all that long. Starcraft is STILL in the stores even now. Good games keep on selling long past the initial rush, and that's where the real money comes from.
:lol:. Yes, so Terra Nova wasn’t a good game because it didn’t sell well. FIFA is a great game because it always sells.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:39:07
Quickly last replies because The Lady insists I go to sleep.

So you haven't seen anything to get excited other than sequels to other games that you already liked? That's exactly the point. Games companies know that people want more of the same, slight evolutions and we'll buy them so that's what they give us.

A statement made in complete knowledge of my enthusiasm for Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind. Anyway, just because something is new and different doesn't mean it's any good. Genres get established because people really enjoy them.

re: losing to shit tactics. The worst thing about RTS at the moment is that you have to play full time to beat anyone. That sucks. There's also rarely any kind of handicap system (unless there's one I haven't heard of?) where you can set the game up to make it more challenging for both players. The equivalent of playing Euro All Stars against Saudi Arabia in Pro Evo Soccer.

Is there ANY real game ever devised ANYWHERE that a good player won't manage to beat a bad player at? You don't have to play full time to win an RTS, but since there are people who play very competitively and train themselves well, you are likely to find yourself up against some very strong opponents from time to time. Really, this is pathetic. If you want a handicap game, open the scenario editor and design one. But it's stupid to insist something sucks because everyone starts off equal.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:40:44
Sean: Sounds like you're a real Metal Fatigue fan:D. Wanna play a match?:D

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:42:34
Originally posted by Shining1
A statement made in complete knowledge of my enthusiasm for Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind. Anyway, just because something is new and different doesn't mean it's any good. Genres get established because people really enjoy them.
Morrowind is in the Elder Scrolls series, and you know it.

Is there ANY real game ever devised ANYWHERE that a good player won't manage to beat a bad player at? You don't have to play full time to win an RTS, but since there are people who play very competitively and train themselves well, you are likely to find yourself up against some very strong opponents from time to time. Really, this is pathetic. If you want a handicap game, open the scenario editor and design one. But it's stupid to insist something sucks because everyone starts off equal.
1) Mario Party, or any other board game that has a large part based on chance.
2) In PES, you can handicap just by choosing teams to make it more balanced. Asking a newbie to make their own level to handicap the more experienced opposition and then persuading people to play on it is hardly the same now, is it?

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:42:41
As an aside about handicaps, generally they don't really work unless you have relatively good players on each side. I've played Jonah Lomu rugby on the playstation as the All Blacks vs. Germany without really knowing what I was doing. Germany won 20-0...:D

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:43:29
Originally posted by Shining1
Sean: Sounds like you're a real Metal Fatigue fan:D. Wanna play a match?:D
I can’t even fidn the CD :(. I have it on the brain, though, because I found the box (sans CD) the other day. Great game.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:44:13
You are right, it's not as bad for games as it is for music. Yet. Still going the same way though. The reviews, especially in magazines are highly suspect. Many shit but well hyped games get great reviews. There are only a couple of mags here I'd trust with reviews, even then I don't buy them any more. It is going the way of music though, it's getting worse and worse. FIFA series sells a hell of a lot more than PES, why? They advertise on TV and people think it's the best football game out there - because it's the only one they've heard of. I've yet to see anyone who's played PES think that FIFA was a better game series. I haven't seen WCIII ads on TV but I've seen them every other place I've been. Game ads are everywhere now, billboards, magazines, some on TV - especially for console games. Some PC games too Sims is regularly advertised on TV still, Medal of honour etc.

Blizzard probably have done some good games, the only one I played I hated so I didn't buy any of their others. Other than on this forum I can't say I've ever heard anyone raving about Diablo or Starcraft the way they did about Half Life or FF7 or Pro Evo Soccer or Grand Theft Auto 3 or Metal Gear Solid or Serious Sam. In fact I don't even remember hearing them get a mention.

ps. Is the UK the only place StarCraft wasn't very big? I don't actually think I know anyone other than Bossman who played it regularly. They re-released it recently but apart from that it hadn't been in the shops for ages 'cause I kept looking out for it.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:45:32
Morrowind = Everwinter scrolls 2 and NWN = Baldurs Gate with tweaked MP isn't it?

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:45:56
Sean: I would have thought it was exactly the same, so long as both sides had some input into it, just like they would playing PES.

And I've never played any Elder Scrolls before, so that invalidates the idea that I have to have played something before in order to enjoy it.

As for Metal Fatigue, you give interesting criterion there for it being better. On that basis, WarcraftIII is better because it has more Orcs:).

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:46:55
I bought it but preferred Total Annihilation. So did all of my RTS-playing friends.

Also, I saw an ad for Morrowind in the cinema where I saw Minority Report the other day.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:47:04
Mike: NWN is as similar to Baldur's Gate as Diablo is.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:47:33
Originally posted by Shining1
As an aside about handicaps, generally they don't really work unless you have relatively good players on each side. I've played Jonah Lomu rugby on the playstation as the All Blacks vs. Germany without really knowing what I was doing. Germany won 20-0...:D
They make the game fairer, they don’t guarantee a win. Like it should be.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:48:55
Originally posted by Shining1
As for Metal Fatigue, you give interesting criterion there for it being better. On that basis, WarcraftIII is better because it has more Orcs:).
OK then. If I want an RTS with massive battles over massive maps, am I going to choose Warcraft III because it is ‘obviosuly the best’?

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:50:48
Countries where they play ads for games in the movies are cool IMO. Sorry. Massive commericalism might be appalling, but at least it's geek massive commericalism.

Total Annihilation is another game that has never been beaten for the stuff it did and how it did it.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 11:52:37
OK then. If I want an RTS with massive battles over massive maps, am I going to choose Warcraft III because it is Ďobviosuly the bestí?

NO! As I've said before, the point of W3 is smaller, slower battles with a lot of Micromanagement of individual units and spell casters. If you want massive battles over gigantic maps, play Total Annihilation.

Sean
10-07-2002, 11:54:32
Why thankyou, and I do :D.

But there you go! Total Annihilation and Half-Life! New games from new companies. And then they (the companies) went shit.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:57:30
Is there ANY real game ever devised ANYWHERE that a good player won't manage to beat a bad player at? You don't have to play full time to win an RTS, but since there are people who play very competitively and train themselves well, you are likely to find yourself up against some very strong opponents from time to time. Really, this is pathetic. If you want a handicap game, open the scenario editor and design one. But it's stupid to insist something sucks because everyone starts off equal.

No, that's not it at all. I like playing against my friends not random people. (It makes me feel slutty and uncomfortable). It's nice to be able to play against someone and have a game which is challenging no matter what skill levels you are at rather than having to go out and find opponents who are at your skill level for a game. Look at the difference between AoK where someone who's completed all the single player campaigns will be slaughtered by someone with a fraction of the playing time if all they've played is multi player and read MP strategy notes, compared to LSN where even a novice can achieve some success against a better opponent in a one off game. I tied with you in only my second LSN game, that was part luck, part running away but there'd be no way I could tie with you in any RTS I've played if we had that kind of proportional experience. Even on PES which I am pretty good at I've had games where I've been brillant, had loads of chances and not scored then lost 1-0 to a freaky goal.

The point is that a poor player should have some chance of doing well against a good player. The good player might win 9/10 games or even 19/20 but there should still be the chance the bad player gets a bit of luck or thinks of something new that helps them win that 1/10, or at least has the vaguest sight of a chance of winning at the moment with RTS if you are an inexperienced player you lose 10/10 against a good player. Something like AoK you need so much knowledge and experience to even be able to play to a basic novice standard that it's very easy to get discouraged before you even start.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 11:58:36
Originally posted by Shining1
Mike: NWN is as similar to Baldur's Gate as Diablo is.

D&D roleplaying game with a strong story element but no party. What's the difference? I genuinely can't tell 'cause I have no genre experience to back it up with.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:00:33
Originally posted by Shining1
Countries where they play ads for games in the movies are cool IMO. Sorry. Massive commericalism might be appalling, but at least it's geek massive commericalism.

Total Annihilation is another game that has never been beaten for the stuff it did and how it did it.

Computer games are so widely accepted now that they are hardly geek only.

Sean
10-07-2002, 12:00:42
Scoring is often the biggest problem for new PES/ISS players. It’s fairly easy to defend competently (but not brilliantly) because they get a lot of practice.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:01:43
Totally agree, I've lost a few 0-0 on penalties against players I should beat when I've been a worse team.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 12:02:35
Mike: Missed your post again. I agree that media information can make the difference to the unsuspecting masses, but PC MP games are a lot more resistant to this than Playstation and music CDs. People who are online generally have much better sources than the corrupt gaming mags you buy instore.

There is definitely something about the U.K and Starcraft that didn't mix. PC Gamer absolutely refused for three years to admit it was any good at all:). Possibly the Red Alert community was so strong and they couldn't get into the game after playing that for so long - they're pretty different, after all.

Sean: Valve is still around, isn't it? Hell, it must be, they're still selling it:).

Agreed though, massive hits and massive evolution of a genre both. To massive success:).

Sean
10-07-2002, 12:02:47
I’ve lost a few round robin leagues through failure to beat the worst player. I am much better at knock-out competitions.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 12:04:02
I've been playing NWN with Rachel for the last week, so I don't really know anymore about the no party thing. With all 5 units we have going in-game, it certainly feels like a party.

Sean
10-07-2002, 12:04:48
Shining, they gave it 80-something percent. That’s hardly bad.

I didn’t say the companies went under, just went shit. When are they going to release TF2, then?

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:06:12
Yeah, I had that happen to me a couple of times too. Anyway that's the point, when I'm playing an RTS that I'm new too against someone who's experienced I feel I have no chance of winning and I can't motivate myself to play something where I don't think I can win. They say practice makes perfect but I absolutely detest practice unless it can be fun and losing all the time is NOT fun if you are as competitive as I am.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:06:47
Originally posted by Shining1
I've been playing NWN with Rachel for the last week, so I don't really know anymore about the no party thing. With all 5 units we have going in-game, it certainly feels like a party.

Right, so it's Baldurs Gate MP then.

Sean
10-07-2002, 12:07:48
Oh yeah, you can also do well at Super Smash Bros. Melee or Super Monkey Ball as a newbie, because they are really easy to pick up and play. The main difference practice makes is consistency, just like in ISS.

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 12:08:06
Originally posted by Funkodrom


D&D roleplaying game with a strong story element but no party. What's the difference? I genuinely can't tell 'cause I have no genre experience to back it up with.

Well, the story really isn't that great. SP is only enjoyable because the game has a hack'n'slash feel, unlike BG.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 12:17:27
Mike: Well, since neither of us have played War3, we'd start out equal then:D.

And no, it's definitely not Baldur's Gate MP. I've done that with her too, and it's crap by comparison.

As for randomness in RTS games, try playing 2 vs 2 matches. A lot can happen in those as compared to standard L33T build order wins in 1 vs 1 games.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:27:16
No because you have hundreds of hours starcraft experience and I used to lose at WCII because I wouldn't make the units that I hated on principle.

But it's still just an evolution of the same thing?

Why not just make 1 v 1 games fun? Surely that'd be better? I've never played 2 v 2, hard enough to find times when you can play with one other person let alone 3 others.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:33:09
Oh and I'm in a horrific nicotine withdrawal tetchy mood today so I'll argue forever about absolutely anything. Thought you should know. :D

Shining1
10-07-2002, 12:36:55
I managed okay when playing AoK to find other players...

Otherwise, I can't comment about the rest of the game and whether it works in 1 vs 1 or not. It's different enough that it might just come down to the type of hero you choose at the start of the game as to whether you get hammered or play well above your abilities. 4 races means a lot of odd balancing effects, too, so one L33T strategy is not going to work all the time.

As for the previous examples, I don't think that's a fair commentary on MP gaming. It's easy enough to give a handicap in an MP RTS match (I did this a couple of times with friends - just waiting a minute or two before I started my buildup in my base since I was so much faster at the start. And I was hardly a fantastic LSN player when I played you - try playing one of the actual good guys like EmperorMing and you find you get owned early and hard.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 12:37:51
I've had my first coffee for the last two days and have calmed down a lot:). Time for bed, ironically enough.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:40:11
Everyone beats me at LSN these days (except Sean ;)). Last two wins I had were from timeouts.

Night!

OldWarrior_42
10-07-2002, 12:55:42
To both Sean and Funko.... I disagree with the analogy to music that Funk used . I also think he is wrong about the music thing as well as you are about the games thing.

Why wouldn't it be possible to see that sales is very probably due to enjoyment of something?

I don't have a problem with games being similar as long as I enjoy them. I wouldn't have really even minded Civ III not being the innovative gem that people thought it would be.

I was pissed that they decided to charge for their patches. (Basically getting MP only by buying the Whatever the hell it was called game... Test of Time or who the fuck knows.)

Just seems to me that if they keep putting out similar games of their respective genre's and they continue to sell the shit out of them, then people must like them.

Same is with music. And just because most of us here dislike Britney or blah blah blah, it is not beyond the realm of thought to think that they are liked by many other fans. Hence the sales.

And I am a believer in the idea that if it were shit.... it wouldn't sell II or III or album 2 or album 3. Most people don't like to get burned more than once on the same product or record or game type.

Just my 2 cents. Think I am going out this morning and buying the game. :D

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 12:57:20
I'm not saying people don't enjoy the stuff they buy but that sometimes they haven't experienced something that they might enjoy more.

OldWarrior_42
10-07-2002, 13:06:18
You must be polling an awful lot of people then... say in the millions? :-P~~

But seriously... if they like something they will continue to buy it. Even if you or me and alot of our friends that we know think it sucks.

Gotta go.... going out with my wife . Later.

Sean
10-07-2002, 13:10:03
Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
To both Sean and Funko.... I disagree with the analogy to music that Funk used . I also think he is wrong about the music thing as well as you are about the games thing.

Why wouldn't it be possible to see that sales is very probably due to enjoyment of something?
Yes, but the point is that:
a) they haven’t been able to experience much else because they have been told/avertised at so much that they have the best,
b) there are plenty of other artists that sound similar to Britney and even improve upon it, but they don’t sell as well, because they don’t have the marketing,
c) sales are a poor record. Sales just shows you (and I have already said this another thread) what is fun, but not too challenging or offensive, so that everybody likes it a bit, but not many people like it a lot.

Sean
10-07-2002, 13:11:39
Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
But seriously... if they like something they will continue to buy it. Even if you or me and alot of our friends that we know think it sucks.
This is the point of the thread. The companies know that they want more of the same, so they give them more of the same, which ends up with people becoming disillusioned with games/music/books/films. There is only so much people can swallow.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 13:12:51
And I've got fed up with computer games faster than books or music. Probably because there is a wider variety of books and music because they are easier to make.

Fistandantilus
10-07-2002, 13:14:49
Originally posted by Funkodrom

ps. Is the UK the only place StarCraft wasn't very big? I don't actually think I know anyone other than Bossman who played it regularly. They re-released it recently but apart from that it hadn't been in the shops for ages 'cause I kept looking out for it.

Well, it was very big here. Hell, even now my boss plays it often (to relieve some stress he says...).

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 13:20:26
I still find it wierd when people are going on about how big Starcraft was. Here it was another mildly successful RTS, nothing special. I'm sure the pre-orders in the UK aren't that high.

Shining1
10-07-2002, 13:36:04
Sean: It ain't what Britney SOUNDS like, brother:).

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 14:31:41
So it's all about graphics? ;)

Sean
10-07-2002, 14:40:06
Originally posted by Shining1
Sean: It ain't what Britney SOUNDS like, brother:).
That was actually my point :confused:.

Funkodrom
10-07-2002, 14:45:06
He was agreeing wasn't he?

Mightytree
10-07-2002, 15:33:04
Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
To both Sean and Funko.... I disagree with the analogy to music that Funk used . I also think he is wrong about the music thing as well as you are about the games thing.

Why wouldn't it be possible to see that sales is very probably due to enjoyment of something?

I don't have a problem with games being similar as long as I enjoy them. I wouldn't have really even minded Civ III not being the innovative gem that people thought it would be.

I was pissed that they decided to charge for their patches. (Basically getting MP only by buying the Whatever the hell it was called game... Test of Time or who the fuck knows.)

Just seems to me that if they keep putting out similar games of their respective genre's and they continue to sell the shit out of them, then people must like them.

Same is with music. And just because most of us here dislike Britney or blah blah blah, it is not beyond the realm of thought to think that they are liked by many other fans. Hence the sales.

And I am a believer in the idea that if it were shit.... it wouldn't sell II or III or album 2 or album 3. Most people don't like to get burned more than once on the same product or record or game type.

Just my 2 cents. Think I am going out this morning and buying the game. :D

You suck.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 07:27:17
Mike&Sean: Britney has great graphics and reasonable gameplay. The sound is a little disappointing, however. I wouldn't buy the soundtrack:).

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 08:27:33
How do you know that? I heard she'd never been played. ;)

Venom
11-07-2002, 12:13:25
I've played the hell out of Britney.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 13:57:31
That's cos the media failed to inform you there was anything better, right?:)

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 13:59:03
It's not up to the media it's up to the individual to go out and look for the good stuff for themselves.

I'm in the middle of an article about the death of PC gaming. Wrote most of it last night but then had to go to the pub, hopefully finish it tomorrow.

Venom
11-07-2002, 13:59:18
It was some pretty good shit, so there may not be anything better.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:01:10
Oh, and I have WarcraftIII:D.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:01:29
Is it shit? ;)

Venom
11-07-2002, 14:01:44
I bet he says no.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:02:31
Rumours of PC gamings death have been greatly exaggerated. PC Gamer, on the other hand - that couldn't come quick enough.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:02:37
I'm not taking that bet.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:03:20
Originally posted by Shining1
Rumours of PC gamings death have been greatly exaggerated. PC Gamer, on the other hand - that couldn't come quick enough.

Which version of PC Gamer UK or US or is there a NZ one?

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:05:34
I'm part way through the second campaign (the undead) and no, it's not. Rachel and I played a bit of MP too, that could be quite fun when we get to learn all the units properly.

There are a lot of spell casting units, but there are also a lot of units that don't cast spells too, and much of the micromanagement is for in between battles. For instance your Elven priests will autocast heal during a battle, your Sorceress's will autocast slow, and your Necromancers will autocast raise dead, so the only thing you're worrying about is using your hero well.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:06:35
UK, that's all we get here. People keep trying to make NZ gaming mags but they can't give them away - we have heard of the internet.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:07:57
People only buy them for the cover DVDs. 200 meg demos are too much for modems.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:11:37
Harden up:).

Venom
11-07-2002, 14:13:43
Originally posted by Funkodrom
People only buy them for the cover DVDs. 200 meg demos are too much for modems.

No they're not.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:15:28
Well you can do it but your computer will crash 15 times during the download and I'm really lazy and it's boring. :sleep:

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:18:38
Leave it going overnight.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:22:57
Fan is too noisy it keeps me awake.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:23:34
I can't even really be bothered downloading 200 meg demos on my cable modem.

Shining1
11-07-2002, 14:24:52
You suck you suck you suck you suck you suck you ingrateful bitch.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 14:26:34
Demos suck.

Sean
11-07-2002, 14:26:52
Neither can I. It’d rather just buy the game without playing the demo than download 200 megs.

Venom
11-07-2002, 15:38:51
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Well you can do it but your computer will crash 15 times during the download and I'm really lazy and it's boring. :sleep:

Nah. It will de done in about an hour.

Funkodrom
11-07-2002, 15:40:21
200 megs in an hour on a modem? No way.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 04:56:17
Cable, not modem.

Fistandantilus
12-07-2002, 07:45:59
I have bought the game ....

Shining1
12-07-2002, 07:50:34
I'm sorry!:D

OldWarrior_42
12-07-2002, 07:53:31
I bought it yesterday(Wednesday) as well. Started playing abit tonight. Just taking a break from it right now.

Not a bad game. But shit... I paid $59.99 for it. Seems a bit much .

Hope the game gets better as I play it. Then again, it's only money. :D

Shining1
12-07-2002, 07:56:10
Rachel is massacring her way though it, and we have a LAN tomorrow with 8 other people. That should be enough material for a good initial review.

(As well as all those other reviews and articles I am due for!)

Fistandantilus
12-07-2002, 08:02:20
It's not as bad as I thought actually.

The first thing I did (after playing the prologue) was going on battlenet but unfortunately there was some kind of server problem and I couldn't join any game.

So after about 10 mins spent in the battlenet italian channel where people were talking about porn :rolleyes: and cursing Blizzard for the server problem I quit and started playing the SP campaign.

Finished the Human one in a single night, it's way too easy. The cutscenes are very nice though :D

Mightytree
12-07-2002, 08:04:22
I expected OW to suck ... but I'm really disappointed in you, Fist. You suck too. :D

Shining1
12-07-2002, 08:05:53
Fist: You finished it on normal or hard? Normal is way too easy (noob stuff), hard is a bit more of a challenge. I couldn't get past level 5 on hard.

Fistandantilus
12-07-2002, 08:09:01
Mt: I know, I know.

Shining: on normal. I'll play the undead one on hard though...

OldWarrior_42
12-07-2002, 08:21:15
Bite me, MT.

:D

Shining1
12-07-2002, 08:30:17
Yeah, MT. Bite him:D.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 14:49:34
Story so far:

Played a few skirmish games with Rachel tonight, and I have a big LAN tomorrow (er, today now. I can't sleep, though). The A.I is very good, it kinda cheats by knowing the map really well, but then again everyone gets to know the map well after a while so that's fair enough. No speed building or extra resources, but noobs will definitely not be able to beat it after just playing the campaigns. You need to learn a skirmish map by heart, and probably record a few games and watch the playback of what it does. It's definitely the way to learn basic tactics.

Venom
12-07-2002, 14:54:38
Originally posted by Shining1
Cable, not modem.

Damn right.

Funkodrom
12-07-2002, 14:56:52
Mines cable and modem. :hmm:

Shining1
12-07-2002, 14:58:42
What's the modem for?

Funkodrom
12-07-2002, 15:07:40
Sitting on the desk looking pretty and being violated by the cable... er.. cable and an ethernet cable.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 15:09:51
So it's a cable modem, you big fantastic lummox?

Funkodrom
12-07-2002, 15:12:43
Originally posted by Funkodrom
I can't even really be bothered downloading 200 meg demos on my cable modem.

Venom
12-07-2002, 15:16:45
Obviously you have a Limey Cable modem that can't download at 500kb/sec. 250 if it's a bad connection and 125 if it's high traffic times.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 15:18:23
500kbs is sweeet:D.

Venom
12-07-2002, 15:20:28
I've gotten higher. With a good connection and really, really late at night I can get 700 or 800.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 15:27:48
You should chance the 'land of the free' bit to 'land of the low ping' if you really want to sell your country.

Of course, that would mean a lot of foreign creeps hogging your bandwidth, so stick with 'the free'.

Venom
12-07-2002, 15:30:14
We get plenty of creeps as is with the land of the free thing.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 15:37:15
People have been exporting their religious extremists to America ever since it was discovered.

Venom
12-07-2002, 15:47:22
Don't forget the Mexicans. They're the worst.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 16:02:39
I wouldn't know. I've only met argentinians before. Oh, and one mexican, yeah, he was a little weird. Also whiter than me.

Venom
12-07-2002, 16:08:01
They smell, they don't speak a word of English. And they rove around in gangs.

Shining1
12-07-2002, 16:12:40
Sounds like the chinese here.

Venom
12-07-2002, 17:07:45
Bastards. The whole lot of them.

Fistandantilus
15-07-2002, 20:48:06
Just stepping in to say that the whole 'Play Game' button/matchup concept of battle.net rocks.

I was used to the 30 mins to get a decent game on The Zone (which means I usually played IP to avoid that). Here, 30 sec after you log on you're playing. Awesome.

Sean
15-07-2002, 21:00:49
Originally posted by Venom
Obviously you have a Limey Cable modem that can't download at 500kb/sec.
It is possible to upgrade to 1mb/sec in just a few mintues.