Retract comments about WC3

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,264
18
19,785
I bought WC3 and the expansion both on release and after a long while I've came to the conclusion that everyone else has. This game sucks. I just finished the expansion and not only am I really tired of building up then attacking things like a drone but the story is just one big go around.
Its a welldone game no doubt but not one I'll be playing much again in the future.
I'm slightly biased as I'm tired of the entire RTS genre.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 
I tend to agree with you. Not so much about WC3 being a bad game, but about being tired with the RTS genre. I dont know if it's a lack of anything revolutionary in the last several years, or if it's more of individual taste that's to blame.

It's certainly not for lack of good games, because they're out there. And there are more coming every year. They just dont hold my interest for very long anymore.
 
I was a latecomer to the MMORPG thing and Ive been liking the teamwork in those games, its reminding me of the old days when I couldnt quit playing a certain game.
Other than that, I never could really put down my copy of Half Life and all its mods. I've recently taken all other FPS games off my system from lack of use.

I want to rant a little bit on a game idea I thought of.
It'd be kindof a hybrid, I think RTS could have some boost but someone needs to add something to it, I'd like to see an adventure game with RTS and RPG elements myself and maybe as the hero you could take part, but in FPS perspective and hack n slash your way to victory with your troops, of course in slower fashion than counterstrike or the like, more like everquest pace but with individual attack movement control, so you can affect the battle outcome greatly but not greatly enough to make something unlikely happen, you wouldnt have to participate directly but standby in a zoomed out classic adventure perspective or watch in FP mode. The perspective would work like everquest and thats about as big of scope the battles would be. You could control your troops which you picked up from adventuring, gathering money and building your name up in the local townships from a mini-window. And put stats on the hero and anything recruited, put age elements in which would effectively give the game a timer (a long timer) like some older games had, people would treat you differently as you grew older and as your physical stats would go down mental stats could go up or down depending on how you treated your character in early to mid game, of course his physical appearance would be affected as well. Faction with townships and beasts.. and allow you to pick the type of hero as in mage, warrior, rogue or tradesman.
Make the players save their game and progress through quests to win the game, which would be crowned king, either through force or quests and deeds.
Put a strong emphasis on adventure elements as in character interaction and traditional questing.
I think the main ideas for this are taken from everquest but with no MMORPG element and Quest for Glory. A modified HL2 engine would be the best fit.. DX9 has the level of detail adventure games need to draw people back in.

I feel the technology is wasted on many FPS, things move too fast and in a slower paced adventure or hybrid you could totally blow away the viewer. I dont see any console really coming anywhere near close to post r300 hardware.
Not that HL2 isnt mindblowing, it has its adventure elements which is why i think HL was so great.

I dunno it sounds cool but no one would probably be willing to develop something different because a FPS or RTS will sell certain numbers guaranteed.

Its like putting out a revolutionary classical music album versus placing your bets on the next 50cent or eminem.
But we've seen that 'genres' really only last about 10 years and something new has to come.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 
"Its like putting out a revolutionary classical music album versus placing your bets on the next 50cent or eminem."

You don't wanna mention 50cent around me, or I'll start my sprees of yelling; G-UNIT!


<font color=green>Cooltek has ran 3,700 miles (5,920km) during 8 seasons of Cross-Country and Track. </font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html " target="_new">http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html </A>
 
Tired of boring old RTS games?
Then try the Fantastic new Rise of Nations
Combining deep research trees and resource management with RTS combat.

Best RTS I have played in a LOOONNNGGG time. I also agree the WC3 is cr@p.

<i>Mmm Dawn AND Eve at the same time...Drroooooll
-------------------------------------------------
<b>XP2100+, 1Gb RAM, ASUS A7N8X, PNY 64Mb Ti4200. 😎
 
Oh yes! Rise of Nations is awesome! My fav. part is when your units first use musket-guns, and they fire in a line and smoke billows everywhere from the firing, coool.

<font color=green>Cooltek has ran 3,700 miles (5,920km) during 8 seasons of Cross-Country and Track. </font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html " target="_new">http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html </A>
 
I thought WCIII (and the expansion), were dissapointing, but not awful games. If they were awful games, why would I finish them? I thought some of the missions were unique, but whether it's completly balanced or not, playing with friends online at WCIII is fun! I'll be playing it with 199 other poeple at a LAN in 2 weeks, it's 2v2 tournaments, and I hope I don't dissapoint my teammate. =0

The fact that 200 hardcore gamers are eagerly playing WCIII, is proof that it really isn't that bad. The single player was weak, not like Starcraft, but there are many gamers who enjoy it multiplaya style.

<font color=green>Cooltek has ran 3,700 miles (5,920km) during 8 seasons of Cross-Country and Track. </font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html " target="_new">http://www.tylersite.8k.com/photo.html </A>
 
People who played WCIII and WC:TFT single player were missing the point...

The single player campaigns were an interesting diversion, but nothing groundbreaking and they do get a bit tedious. Tearing it up RT on Battle Net is where its at.

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
 
I think the first RTS game that I ever played was the original warcraft back in the days of dos. Since then I've played WCII, SC, AoEII, C&C, SWGB, AoM, WCIII and their expansions. Probably the one I like the least out of these is WCIII. SC/BW was the best and I still like to get on battlenet with it from time to time, but after playing through WCIII I have no desire to play it online. Not only is there nothing special about it, the story was predictable and I simply prefer having many more units running around at one time than WCIII allows. There are a number of people out there worried about SCII being in the same vein as WCIII, but I hope it will be good.
 

Latest posts