So all the official websites are saying Warcraft III is the best thing since sliced bread.
I’d like to hear from you guys - is it worth buying ?
Obviously I have played Warcraft I, II, StarCraft, Diablo I, II.
Yes, it is worth buying. Sixty bucks for the standard version is highway fucking robbery, though. If you can wait, you should. More importantly, What Would Supertanker Do?
Also. If you subscribe to the “click on units and they make teh funnay!” school of game development, you will adore this game. Personally I hate that type of novelty crap since it tends to be a cheap substitute for quality gameplay. But that’s not so in this case, and I have to admit, some of them are hilarious-- and way the hell out there. There are references to Iron Chef, Celebrity Jeopardy, even Bon Jovi.
It’s worth buying for the SP game and the slick production values. The tired MP can go rot, fancy lobby or nay. The game is still as dumb as ever, desperately needing the interface and AI more recent RTS titles like Kohan and WBC2 have made me take for granted. The story play is really well done, though, and the game just reeks of that whole Blizzard polish I love. Sound’s top notch. With a fun pulpy story and memorable characters, I can forgive the gameplay for feeling ever so 1997. I can’t do that for MP, where the game degenerates into another tedious Blizzard celebration of meaningless micromanagement and unit babysitting. Boo.
That said…
Greg Kasavin’s review on GS, despite needing an editor, seems to be the worst case of apologism I’ve seen for the game yet. I swear, these “hype validation” reviews are getting out of hand - are pro game reviewers that afraid of their more avid readers? Sorry, Greg, luv ya and all, but that review was pretty wretched (I lost count of the number of sentences starting with an conjunction, never you mind that the game review really didn’t dig into the gameplay at all). In our desire to play it safe and meet readers’ expectations, could we at least work in a LITTLE meaningful criticism? Y’know, just to keep Blizzard on their toes and to give their competition credit where credit is due? Am I asking too much, here?
There are references to Iron Chef, Celebrity Jeopardy, even Bon Jovi.
I hate that shit. Pop culture gags don’t work for me, unless they’re really bloody esoteric.
starting with an conjunction
“a conjunction”, even, just because grammar gripes always lead to the more persnickety readers around here sniping from the cover of anonymity. Never mind that message boards are largely informal, as opposed to formal reviews - but hey, something has to keep Met_K busy.
I heard there is a secret level where you have to keep your troops in clean clothes. Instead of gold mines, there are borax mines, and instead of trees, there are huge piles of dirty uniforms around the map. You send your peons out to bring loads of the dirty laundry, borax, and water to your castle, where it is all put into the “scrubbing que,” generating clean-uniformed soldiers. The add-on pack will let you add sock-sorting and floor mopping, too.
With a fun pulpy story and memorable characters, I can forgive the gameplay for feeling ever so 1997
This game is no Kohan, to be sure, but there are a few key innovations (all of which Blizzard arguably stole or borrowed) which keep it from being a total micromanagement fest.
For one thing, units keep logical formations WITHOUT being explicitly told to do so. Eg, archers and support in the back, heroes and melee up front. I know, it sounds trivial, but for whatever reason, it’s not common in the genre.
The auto-cast option is an absolute lifesaver. It’s too bad that you’re limited to a single “special” spell per unit that can be toggled this way, but regardless-- it’s a crucial enhancement.
I like the “upkeep” development limiter, too. Once your population gets to a certain size/cost, you incur overhead: all of your resource mining is penalized a certain percentage. This should help with the “rich get richer” problem these games tend to have… smaller forces will gain resources more quickly than larger ones.
Hero management is a nice gameplay addition which keeps things varied and interesting. They level up, gain abilities, collect powerups, etcetera.
As I said originally-- this game is not a rehash of WC2, it’s the summation of everything that Blizzard has learned about the RTS genre. Eg, a lot. Now, whether they were out innovating or busy copying from the guy next to them is up to you to decide. But the game is solid.
NOTE: I can’t speak at all for the multiplayer. I’m finishing up the final campaign. However, I will agree that Kasavin’s review could go a lot lighter on the ass-kissing smarm, and a bit heavier on the actual criticism.
To me, it looks a LOT like Battle Realms… altho the gameplay is more refined and less confusing in the unit department.
The AI, at least from the 4 human vs 2 AI coop I just experienced, seems to be fooking BRUTAL. Just when we thought we’d whipped their asses, they came back with a metric shitload of stuff and wiped two of us right off the map.
Wumpus - what’s your SA forum screename?
What if there is nothing to really criticize?
Here is Kasavin’s review, btw. Good reading but a bit long.
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2873347,00.html
Read it before it gets locked up! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :!: :!: :!: :!:
Anyone else really irked that Blizzard didn’t use the new small boxes BTW? The art is great, but it won’t fit on my shelf.
By AI, I mean pathfinding. I still have to babysit my formations - for success in MP, you simply can’t rely on auto-casting or the auto-formations. Battlecry 2, on the other hand, is smart enough to allow me to relax my micromanagement efforts and focus on real strategy/tactics.
“I lost count of the number of sentences starting with an conjunction”
Fuck dude, quit it, As if the what is art thread is not bad enough I now have to read this kind of shit. And after the warm love in of everyone posting their real lives, I was feeling so fuzzy.
Funny, I’m staring at the small box on my desk right now.
Unless you’re refering to the Collector’s Edition…
Not sure if it was worth the wait, all being said and done, but it’s not bad so far, but was just hoping for a far lot more.
— Alan
Played a few games of MP today with some friends. It’s strangely unsatisfying – the upkeep limitation is painful enough that you’re forced to attack at inopportune times. It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available – not sure if I like that because it still favors the side with more resources. Heroes I equate with the Commander in Total Annihilation – they only really do a lot of damage if you’re micromanaging them, and only if you surprise attack, or attack while your opponent is busy somewhere else. It’s also hard to select guys in the heat of combat, which makes it hard to cast spells.
Computer AI is like Starcraft – still has problems dealing with isolation/funnel maps, and still seems fairly mindless/relentless. Overall, multiplayer is OK, but not really as improved over Starcraft as I had hoped it would be. I can’t speak for single-player since I haven’t tried it yet.
The production values are just out-of-this-world, though…it’s an extremely pretty game…
(edit: spelling)
Sounded like Chick has played Warcraft III quite a bit. I’m curious if he thinks it’s on the same level as Warlords Battlecry 2 which so far this year is clearly the best RTS available in his opinion based on the review in CGM. I agree 100% with that review so I’m really wondering where Tom stands on this one…
–Dave
So was Dungeon Siege.
Year of High Production Values! Everything gets a 9.0 or higher!
I felt this way too, at first. Eventually you realize that the game is best played with smaller forces, and you plan on it. It’s not meant to be a big, grand strategy game. It’s more like an RPG with skirmish combat. It would have been nice if they had provided more “non-standard” MP game types to highlight that, however.
The best strategy is to create the smallest army that you can use effectively. After lots of playing, I find that I prefer this to the WC2 method of “build as much as you can and then steamroller the enemy.”
It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available – not sure if I like that because it still favors the side with more resources.
That doesn’t really work, since upkeep isn’t based on number of units but rather food consumption. Powerful units consume more food.
Heroes I equate with the Commander in Total Annihilation – they only really do a lot of damage if you’re micromanaging them, and only if you surprise attack, or attack while you’re opponent is busy somewhere else. It’s also hard to select guys in the heat of combat, which makes it hard to cast spells.
I haven’t played a whole lot of MP yet (5 or 6 games), but in the solo game they are nothing like the Commander in TA. Heroes, used effectively, are the most important units in the game. And the fact that they get new skills and can use items is pretty nifty, too. Casting spells on group members in the heat of combat is easy; casting spells on enemy units can be tricky, however.
Overall, multiplayer is OK, but not really as improved over Starcraft as I had hoped it would be.
So far, I pretty much agree. But try out the “special” scenarios. One is a hero-only dungeon crawl that plays like Gauntlet. The other… well you just have to experience it.
I can’t speak for single-player since I haven’t tried it yet.
Best part of the game. Go play it. Really.
I picked the game up at CompUSA and got an “original sized” box, with a creepy blue chick on the cover. It’s not the collector’s edition, anf it sure ain’t one of the new boxes.
“It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available”
But then those take up more population points (or whatever they’re called) and make you hit your limit faster.
I finished the game, finally. Geez, it’s long. I didn’t care for the nutty outtakes reel at the end, or being admonished to finish the game on “hard” to see what ADDITIONAL nutty outtakes I get to see.
I wasn’t expecting this game to be very good, so I was pleasantly surprised. Personally, I think it is enough of a departure from WC2 and SC to be interesting. At least Blizzard tried to address some common criticisms of their previous games; time will tell if they were successful or not.
Now that I’ve completed the single-player training, I’ll have to get around to playing multiplayer one of these days.
Are there any other interesting RTS games on the horizon?