PDA

View Full Version : Unbeatable Warcraft 3 strategy!


Funkodrom
11-10-2002, 16:01:32
http://strategy.warcraftiii.net/news.php?id=76

:lol:

Funkodrom
11-10-2002, 16:11:14
The comments are almost as funny as the strategy. :D

Venom
11-10-2002, 17:28:15
Link ain't working right now.

MDA
11-10-2002, 18:56:47
Adune 2002-10-08 12:14:49

I'm guessing this article is humor guys. Sure, this isn't top not strategy, but I think it would way hillarious to send in 3 or 4 zepplins of peons, quickbuild a town hall, & call to arms while dropping towers. I don't think 8 is enough. MORE PEONS~~

He's just guessing, but he's not quite sure. :)

Stop making me want this game, I have a shitty dialup connection. :mad:

LadyRachel
11-10-2002, 21:10:27
So do we. :p

This is the best strat ever.

Funkodrom
15-10-2002, 16:22:13
My favourite bit is this:

At that point you teleport and BAM! INSTANT VICTORY! (victory not guaranteed)

Venom
15-10-2002, 16:47:45
:lol: It would have been even geekier if he used BAMF! for the teleporting sound.

And if you know why, you're a geek.

Funkodrom
15-10-2002, 16:53:48
I don't know why! :beer:

Venom
15-10-2002, 16:59:05
I'm a geek. But I only found this out recently when following news of the X-Men movie.

Funkodrom
15-10-2002, 17:11:05
X-Men? :confused: ;)

Venom
15-10-2002, 17:23:22
It's the sound Nightcrawler makes when he teleports.

Funkodrom
15-10-2002, 17:31:20
Ah. I even used to read Excalibur.

Venom
15-10-2002, 18:28:28
That's disappointing then.

Shining1
16-10-2002, 02:51:38
I hope it's better than the first one.

Venom
16-10-2002, 03:04:23
First one was pretty good.

Shining1
16-10-2002, 03:06:40
It was good for being, like, 'the first one'. But the next one needs to be better now that they've done all the establishment stuff.

Funkodrom
16-10-2002, 08:34:45
The first one was a hell of a lot better than I thought Hollywood could do it. You're right, there should be more meat in the next one now they've established the characters and relationships a bit.

Venom
16-10-2002, 12:04:13
The next one sounds damn cool. Much more pure action.

Funkodrom
16-10-2002, 12:06:47
:hmm:

The whole point of the X-Men comics was the interactions between the characters. The action is a bit more secondary.

The shittest thing about the last one was that turn people into mutants ray. That was a really, really gay storyline.

Venom
16-10-2002, 12:12:21
Very gay story. And when I say more pure action, I mean like when they fight...it sounds like it's going to be bigger and better battles. As for character interactions I can't really say as that's something that you can only get out of reading the script and I haven't done that.

Funkodrom
16-10-2002, 12:16:03
Script and how they act. Like a lot of the Wolverine Jean stuff is just through looks.

Decent battles sounds good though.

Venom
16-10-2002, 12:20:09
I'm sure the acting will be fine. Everyone did fine in the last one.

Funkodrom
16-10-2002, 12:29:19
Especially Huge Ackman. He was a much better Wolvie than I expected.

FunkyFingers
16-10-2002, 12:31:01
The film was good overall I thought, definitely the characterisation and the direction and casting were all better than I could have hoped. Roll on the next film!

FunkyFingers
16-10-2002, 12:33:31
X-Men was one of the first films I bought on DVD actually - on the "Internet"

Venom
16-10-2002, 12:35:12
They've been on a roll lately with Marvel superhero films. They've finally got people making these films that love the characters as much as the fans.

If I wasn't such a huge Spider-Man fan, I'd say that X-Men was a better/tighter film.

Funkodrom
16-10-2002, 12:55:15
Spiderman was surprisingly good as well. Even though the CGI Spidey was shite.

Venom
16-10-2002, 12:58:55
It didn't look too bad in the movie theater, but when I saw it on a regular TV (albeit a very small airplane TV) it was complete shit.

Shining1
17-10-2002, 01:05:53
Of course the storyline for the first one was gay. That wasn't important. The important bit was that there was this live action X-men movie and everyone seemed to come across very well as their set characters.

More big fight scenes would rock majorly.

Haven't seen spiderman, but that's okay, because I haven't seen Happy Potter yet either. One DVD at a time. So long as Kirsten Dunst still looks most really I'm not that worried about the CGI. There have been SOOOO many movies where they got the CGI right and fucked up just about everything else that CGI isn't such a major priority for me anymore.

Venom
17-10-2002, 03:24:10
They surely didn't fuck it up George Lucas style. There was just no other way to capture Spider-Man's movements and I think that's about the best they could have done.

SATAN
17-10-2002, 08:32:14
Originally posted by Venom
:lol: It would have been even geekier if he used BAMF! for the teleporting sound.

And if you know why, you're a geek.

you forgot the smell of sulphur :gasmaske:

Funkodrom
17-10-2002, 08:41:32
So long as Kirsten Dunst still looks most really I'm not that worried about the CGI.

Huh?

Shining1
19-10-2002, 02:49:49
Gods that's a great sentence:).

Venom
19-10-2002, 03:37:57
Originally posted by SATAN
you forgot the smell of sulphur :gasmaske:

I have not developed smellopost techonology yet.

Greg W
27-10-2002, 20:11:27
Originally posted by Funkodrom
So long as Kirsten Dunst still looks most really I'm not that worried about the CGI.
Huh? "Moist" perhaps?

Shining1
28-10-2002, 07:21:40
:D

And now I've seen Harry Potter. Fuck off everyone who didn't like that movie, you stupid hardcore Potter freaks. It was cool.

Darkstar
28-10-2002, 08:27:48
HP is a pretty decent flick, S1. It would take some serious hardcore fans to not like it, methinks... and no need to worry about them. They are just practicing for future X Files : 2 fans, or the new ST or Xena/Hercky line. ;)

Sean
28-10-2002, 09:12:43
Originally posted by Darkstar
HP is a pretty decent flick, S1. It would take some serious hardcore fans to not like it, methinks...
Either that or someone who thinks that a movie should be good, not just decent.

Shining1
28-10-2002, 09:31:06
As I said, it was cool.

Darkstar
28-10-2002, 09:40:45
Originally posted by Sean
Either that or someone who thinks that a movie should be good, not just decent.

:rolleyes: A decent meal means a good meal. Same thing with entertainment.

Funkodrom
28-10-2002, 09:51:32
Originally posted by Shining1
:D

And now I've seen Harry Potter. Fuck off everyone who didn't like that movie, you stupid hardcore Potter freaks. It was cool.

It was OK.

Sean
28-10-2002, 10:03:04
Originally posted by Darkstar
:rolleyes: A decent meal means a good meal. Same thing with entertainment.
Yes, but a meal is more for nutrition than pure entertainment.

Darkstar
28-10-2002, 10:09:58
Entertainment is just a meal for your mind. And just as required, if you are to stay healthy and mentally sharp.

Sean
28-10-2002, 10:13:53
Er, so? I have higher standards for entertainment than for food.

Funkodrom
28-10-2002, 10:26:12
A decent meal means it was something that helped you not starve but wasn't particularly good or memorable I would say.

We should demand more than that from our entertainment. Harry Potter was definitely worth seeing for me though, just not as good as the books which I really loved.

Darkstar
28-10-2002, 10:43:13
Humm... and how many books are better then their movies? Most good books are 'better' then their movies, because of the differences in media. In time that the reader spends with the book versus movie, at a mimumum.

And if I find a book, movie, or meal 'decent', that means I'd be willing to enjoy it again. Something that is merely 'required to survive' is not something I'd enjoy, so I wouldn't do it again unless my choices were narrowed to do it or die.

Decent = ok to good. A decent book, a decent meal. Not spectacular or fantastic, but then, so few things are... Harry Potter : Year 1, I don't mind running in the DVD player. It's a basic feel good movie. Same as the book. If you expected something different, I have to wonder why?

Funko, I thought the movie did well as an adaption from the book. How do you think it could be better, precisely? And still fit in the commercial movie format for time? Something both young ones and adults can and will sit through in one telling?

Funkodrom
28-10-2002, 10:50:27
Sometimes I get caught up in a book and when I see a film of it I don't like it so much because some things are not quite how I imagined them. Quite a lot of things in Harry Potter were like that for me. Not that that should be a surprise.

And you are right about book adaptations. It was definitely a good adaptation as book adaptations go. Harry Potter suffered coming out the week before Lord of the Rings I think.

Darkstar
28-10-2002, 11:11:23
I'd expect more people to whine about LotR movie the the HP1 movie. Fans have had the books longer, had longer to build up their own private worlds about it.

There are two things, I think, that causes a movie adaption to not be viewed 'as a movie' by fans of the book. One is, the movie doesn't present a look that the fan likes. Clashes with the fan's private world of that book. The other is just the combined time/media issue... With a book, their is more time involved for the fan, more details, and the pacing that the story gets told is always at the pace of the fan. With a movie, the fan is presented with a small window of the world, and only part of the book is presented, leaving out so many small but 'coloring' bits of the book.

A good book is like a large painting, while a movie is like a guided tour in the gallery showing that painting. The difference is one is viewing the large painting by oneself, you can take all the time you want to soak in the painting, and the creator's art has maximum communication time. All the small nuances get a chance to make an impression on the viewer. On a guided tour, someone is pointing out the 'highlights', and the pace is set by outside forces.

Movies are but short stories. Any story longer then that is hurt by being shoe horned into a movie format. I try to view movie adaptions as just that, a visual short story based on the book. I find more movies are enjoyable that way.

Funkodrom
28-10-2002, 11:14:58
LotR was a better movie, and mainly because they did change things around to make it into a more fluid film. Harry Potter pretty much stuck to the book exactly but it just missed bits of the story out. Which made it a bit disjointed and hard to follow for people who hadn't read the books.

Shining1
28-10-2002, 12:46:53
Which is a bit bizarre because I keep hearing that only from people who have read the book...

Funkodrom
28-10-2002, 12:51:03
I am only passing on what two people I know who saw it without reading the books said.

Sean
28-10-2002, 22:48:45
Originally posted by Darkstar
A decent meal means a good meal. Same thing with entertainment.Originally posted by Darkstar
Decent = ok to good.

So, not as good as good, then?

Shining1
29-10-2002, 04:21:47
Decent = not morally repugnant:).

Darkstar
29-10-2002, 06:35:57
Some people use 'decent' to mean ok/average. I usually mean some tone of good, up to my actual good threshold. For me, good runs 'good' to 'excellent'. So no... it isn't on the scale of 'excellent'. But it is 'decent'. :D

HP1 the movie I'd rank about 6.5 on a scale of 1 to 10. For my taste.

Amazing how much Poly factor Sean adds to this forum. Guess he just doesn't get enough Poly dose in a day.

Sean
29-10-2002, 09:34:31
I just find you incredibly funny.