Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

First Warcraft 3 Reviews Trickle In 363

Posted by michael
from the i'd-rather-be-sailing dept.
Mortin writes "Several reviews of Warcraft 3, set to be released on July 3, are up at Icrontic, Tweakers.com.au, and of course IGN. Looks like Blizzard has yet another killer game on their hands."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Warcraft 3 Reviews Trickle In

Comments Filter:
  • Re: July 3? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Andorion (526481) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:25PM (#3796882)
    Even so - people will buy it so they can play on the official battle.net network.

    -Berj
  • Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:28PM (#3796890)
    The RTS genre is one of those that i found interesting at first, but after playing six to eight quite similar games, i've kind of lost interest in the genre. I had quite a lot of fun with Starcraft and Myth 2 for a short while, but mostly only when i could find someone i knew to play with, like at a LAN party or something. Eventually, i got kind of tired of these. I don't really play these games anymore.

    Give me one reason why i should care about WarCraft 3, given that? Is there any reason that this is different or would catch my attention? I'm reading the reviews. Nothing is particularly catching my eye.

    If no one can come up with a good answer to this question, i think i'm just going to go back to bed, pretend i'm boycotting Blizzard because of their unethical attempts to use barratry to crush people legally reverse-engineering their games' communication protocols, and eagerly await this fall, when the mac release of Neverwinter Nights is out, and i will also be able to play Star Wars Galaxies on my girlfriend's PC :)

    -- super ugly ultraman
  • by JohnA (131062) <johnanderson@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:28PM (#3796894) Homepage
    Slashdot (specifically Michael) posts several front page stories [slashdot.org] talking about how Blizzard is suing the bnetd project [bnetd.org], and then they post these reviews.

    Sigh... to be expected... I guess the Slashdot editors are only interested in preserving their rights when it doesn't involve any action on their part.

  • by LadyGuardian (568469) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:37PM (#3796922) Homepage Journal
    Yes, but isn't it up to the individual to make up their own mind? Being presented with both sides of the issue is the only way to ensure that you have the ability to make an educated decision.

    Conversely, /. isn't the best spot to go for pro-Microsoft/big-corporation news, so I know my point is kind of stepped on that way...
  • some (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zdzichu (100333) <<zdzichu> <at> <irc.pl>> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:38PM (#3796927) Homepage Journal
    "The cut scenes are movie quality"

    well, right. Blizzard always made best cutscenes. Those in W3 are compressed with DivX, to be more like real movies ;).

    Warcraft is really good game. And the additional scenes after credits - simply rocks. Just to say - there are many short scences, one of them is Warcraft2 intro redone in War3 engine.

    The game was cool, alhrough my mouse wheel didn't worked. Running under wine and winex was unsuccesfull - big minus.
  • by Saxerman (253676) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:41PM (#3796940) Homepage
    I'll admit I was disappointed that there is no link or mention of the bnetd lawsuit in this story. However, Slashdot is suppose to be a news site. As much as we might like /. to turn into a political activist website I would rather make up my own mind on the issues rather than checking in here on how to think or act.

    As such, I will not be buying WC3 if they continue this lawsuit and have told all my friends why. Unfortunately they seem to think I'm some kind of weird Linux zealot (as opposed to a Protoss one?) and will be buying it anyways. But at least I'm trying to make a difference by not joining in their reindeer games, right?

    "Say, why won't Sax play Warcraft with us?" "I think it's against his religion."

  • by Skirwan (244615) <skerwin@macGIRAFFE.com minus herbivore> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:46PM (#3796960) Homepage
    I guess the Slashdot editors are only interested in preserving their rights when it doesn't involve any action on their part.
    Or maybe they're interested in providing a fair and balanced coverage of news issues.

    Slashdot is a news site. Part of reporting the news is covering both sides of the issues, regardless of personal belief. Would you prefer the editors simply post their opinions, without linking to documentation? Personally I much prefer the current system, wherein information is provided and I form my own opinion. If you are unable to form opinions, either through brain damage or simple lack of cognitive functionality, perhaps we can arrange a 'Slashdot lite' where the editors can simply tell you what to think.

    Again, for the slower readers: This is a news site. It reports the news (for nerds) and stuff that matters.

    --
    Damn the Emperor!
  • Re:Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jack9 (11421) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:51PM (#3796974)
    The one reason you should care about Warcraft3 is that it's a long-awaited cultural event. Everyone who's anyone on the internet knows about it and for some time people will have an opinion about it. That's not saying YOU should or that it's even a GOOD THING (tm) but it's something you should know. It's coming out July 3rd, a lot of internet savvy people care. Sleeping through this 'event' will be easy and probably wise. Oh yeah, Blizzard is a game company who has an unblemished track record in game varied popular game titles (debateable...Blackthorne?).
    There is no similar company. This is yet another opportunity to prove themselves or fail.
  • by HomerJ (11142) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:56PM (#3796991)
    I'm going to put this game in the same catagory as Doom 3, and say that this is what's wrong with the American game industry.

    There is too much convergant thinking in PC games anymore. War Craft 3, and Doom 3 being prime examples. Neither game sets off to be a good game in their own right. They want to be the perfect example of what a game in their genre would be. Neither Id nor Blizzard look at a game anymore and go "what would be good for this game?" they go "what would be good for a RTS or FPS?" Instead of trying to give the player a totally new experience, and make it something worth my time to play, I just get new polish on the same games that have been released for years. Most of the "improvements" in WC3 weren't because it would make it a better experience in the world of Warcraft, it's what would make it a more "perfect" RTS. The same can be said for Doom 3, which is going toward what a "perfect" FPS should be. It seems like the companies just seem to say "let's make a RTS, do what would be a perfect RTS, then just theme it with whatever franchise we should have a sequel to. Id being the same way, just so happens the Doom was the next franchise to get an update to approach that "perfect" FPS.

    Is it really that hard anymore to actually try to create a game, and then design an interface to the game that would be best fitted to the experience you wanted to gamer to have? Show me something new before I put down $60 for a game. Or has the US gaming market have become so braindead that if a game doesn't fit perfectly into a given genre, it's "too hard and confusing". Excuse me if I don't want the same game 50 times, and have to have my hand held though a game. Give me something new, and I'll go put $60 to get a copy.

  • by CrazyJim0 (324487) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:00PM (#3797006)
    Beat single player in 2 days >:) It plays like a movie... If you had a good movie that lasted 48 hours, it'd be praised :)

    Thing is it lasts multiplayer too, bad ass game... Nothing new, just more of the same, refined better :)

    I write occasional articles in warcraftstrategy.com under the nick crazy jim.

    One of the best parts of battlenet games is that you meet alot of friends on it. I have a clan, so people chill in our channel, and talk about shit and hang. Its a whole lot of fun and even more so if you get involved with the communities.

    The game plays like a new game of chess, there is no way of knowing what will win 100%, and if you know what wins 100%, then we evolve the game by letting Blizzard know about it.

    Blizzard is a great company that respects its players highly. I submitted a ton of bug reports in the beta, and got a free copy of the game because I finished in the top 16 :) Blizzard listens to player suggestions, and changes based on them. I know like several dozen changes in the beta happened on stuff I was suggesting. Might not have been direct, but I felt like I was getting some respect in it.

    I don't know about Vivendi, but I do know all Blizzard's titles have quality behind them. If you don't know what to buy in the store, a Blizzard title isn't gonna suck.
  • by EvilBastard (77954) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:05PM (#3797033) Homepage
    All they did (showing some of that wonderful Blizzard Creativity) was take the main character from Diablo, and put it in the middle of Warcraft. The trouble is, the heros are so essential to the game, and so hideously overpowered the rest of the characters are reduced to sideshows.

    Warcraft III is designed to be a quick and dirty game where the fights are over in 30 minutes or less. Gone is any hope of a epic back-and-forth fight, it's a lets get the game finished as quick as possible.

    The first person to lose their hero has lost the game in 90% of the cases, because their hero is out of the game for 2 minutes, while the other hero is running around levelling up and getting more items.

    In order to get the game over as quick as possible, the game is exaggerated - if you lose, you come into the next fight at a disadvantage. If you win, you are more likely to win the next time, because the game is adjusting the hero's strengths. Add to that the Upkeep rules and the game is saying "You will play me this way or not at all - I will not let you deviate from the designers vision"

    Strategy games should not do this - It's like playing a game of chess where when you capture the oponents pieces you get to put them on your side. Fun ? Maybe once or twice for the low-attention span crowd, but it's not strategy.

    Personally, I'd look to a company that doesn't have a history of screwing over the open source community, or trying to steal your personal details from your system registry - say Creative Assembly, who will be releasing the latest Total War game in the near future - Medieval Total War [totalwar.com] which is more a computerised table top wargame then anything else.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:09PM (#3797050)
    You've never played the game I take it? That you you loose alot. Using the hero In multiplayer is completely un-neccasary.
  • by MoTec (23112) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:11PM (#3797055)
    The reason I like the 5 peon per mine limit is that it forces everyone to expand early so they can get in more cash flow. War3 isn't the first with this. Empire Earth did the same thing and to me it just seems natural now. You have to explore in a RTS anyway... Why not do it with your hero and a few troops and open the way for a 2nd and 3rd base at the same time?

    I don't know... Maybe my brain has been warped by the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've played War2, C&C, AOE, EE and other games. I just think they are getting better.
  • by gripdamage (529664) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:12PM (#3797059)
    Let me spell this out for you: this article is about Warcraft 3 being a killer game. The bnetd project has nothing to do with it.

    It's obviously possible to think Blizzard's actions against bnetd are wrong, and think Warcraft 3 is a killer game at the same time.

    What you seem to be proposing is that Michael should lie or omit the truth about Warcraft 3, because he disagrees with Blizzard's actions against bnetd.
  • Re:Jesus, people (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:33PM (#3797125)
    Thanks for letting me know I hate the MPAA. I must have forgot or something.

    Or maybe I never did and you're retarded. Perhaps you hate the MPAA and you're pissy because I don't.
    Much like Vivendi and the bnetd battle. I don't give a shit, and that probably enrages you. I mean if you think something, surely everyone on a forum of tens of thousands will also!
  • by neurojab (15737) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:38PM (#3797134)
    I played warcraft 3 at Fry's a bit today in Sunnyvale. They had 4 really nice warcraft 3 setups available for anyone to sit and give a try.

    My impressions: Graphically, it's amazing. The sound completely rocks. The unit AI is the best I've seen in an RTS yet. For instance, when your peasants are done building, they will go and do something useful like chop lumber or mine gold. This eliminates a great deal of micro management.
    I can't say more than that because I only completed a couple of battles, but it filled my soul with the urge to upgrade my hardware.

    FYI.. Fry's is also selling it an hour before the rest of the west coast... 11PM on the 2nd.
  • Re:Jesus, people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RovingSlug (26517) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:41PM (#3797148)
    Eric Flint in Prime Palaver #8 [baen.com] expressed the point best: "Grow up, dammit."

    Since you're probably too unmotivated to read it, let me extract a couple relevant sections:

    Or, to move to American literature, I find the politics of Ernest Hemingway a lot more to my liking than the politics of William Faulkner. Yet, as a rule, I dislike the fiction of Hemingway -- I find his obsession with issues of "manhood" boring ("c'mon, Ernie, I figured this stuff out by the time I was seventeen; grow up, willya?") -- and I adore the fiction of William Faulkner.

    Literature is not politics. The only time I will refuse to read the fiction writings of someone whose political views I strongly disagree with is if their actual writings are simply a thinly-disguised veneer for their political program.

    ...

    Literature -- and popular fiction is no different, there's no Chinese wall separating the two -- is not politics. A writer as a political figure and his or her fiction are not the same thing. Their political and social views will, of course, influence their writings. But the way that influence works its way through can get extremely complex, even contradictory. And since no political viewpoint -- not even mine, as amazing as it may be -- ever captures all of human reality, you will often discover that a writer whose expressed viewpoints on political matters seems stupid or offensive to you still has something to say in his fiction which strikes a chord.

    All points he makes apply directly to the Warcraft 3 / Blizzard situation. Blizzard's politics and the quality of their products are independent -- especially when you consider the people who create the games are a wholly separate group from those who make the political decisions.

    And that applies to the MPAA, too. You can despise their political actions, but still appreciate the work by Sam Raimi, Stan Lee, and company; Peter Jackson, J.R.R. Tolkien, and company; and so on.

    So by no means is it doublethink to say, "We dislike Blizzard's actions toward BNetD. In addition, we like Warcraft 3." Take your head out of that sandbox you've burried it in, and grow up.

  • Blizzard had said that they wished to create an RTS where mass producing legions of units and rushing them against the enemy wasn't the primary (and only effective) strategy available. Well, I think, in that regard, that Blizzard has failed to make the combatting armies smaller and tactical decision making more important.

    I say this from playing the WCIII beta for two months. Compared to Starcraft and WCII tactics, WCIII has similarly large armies and tactics, whereby you pump out, as fast as possible, as many units as you can and send them all in one clump towards the enemy. Of course, one produces a diverse type of army to counter any of the enemy's forces, but the resultant tactic still says the same. Push your army into the enemy's base and keep the guys coming.

    With the large amount of hitpoints of most units, it is very hard to employ any effective defensive strategies. No longer can 12 archers (or any long rangers) all target one incoming melee and kill him before he reaches your defensive wall. No longer can cannon towers or other defensive structures play a significant role in actually defending your base. Employing a defensive position and constructing defensive structures along with an appropriate mix of units no longer even remotely effectively defends one's base.

    My experiences come from playing against both skilled and newer players in the WCIII beta. I found that the skilled players employed the all crushing, mass producing rush of 80 guys as soon as possible. Unlike in SC or WCII, attempts to form concentrated defensive kill zones where the enemy would attack completely failed to even remotely repel an attack. Against the newer players, armies meeting midway in the field would often just hack at each other with little strategic input into their actions. It was hard both to control which units attacked another and what spells to fire off in the ensuing melee.

    I look forward to the single player campaign, however, because, without the unescapable lag and the mad rushing, WCIII could be a great game.

    I just wasn't all that impressed with the multiplayer, though. Sigh.
  • Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Balinares (316703) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @07:32PM (#3797329)
    Actually, some companies did try originality. Let's take, say, Looking Glass [ttlg.com]. Those guys made *EXCELLENT* games. Thief [thief-thecircle.com] revolutionized the FPS concept. Thief 2 is one of my fav games ever, and one of the very few remotely recent games that I consider worth my time.

    Next thing you know, Looking Glass bites the dust.

    Why?

    My idea is that if you're reaching for the masses (and if you want to make money with a $50 game, you'd better reach for the masses), you'll have to aim for the masses' Lowest Common Denominator. Kind of like McD, if you want: they sell cheap crap that is successful worldwide because it's the lowest common denominator of food. Maybe it goes the same for games, and the suits, whose priority is to make the most money out of the game, will only approve games with the most basic gameplay...

    Sad, indeed. Good thing there are mods [ttlg.com]...
  • by Heisenbug (122836) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @09:00PM (#3797811)
    Blizzard games is they seem quite long-lived. I still know lots of people who play Starcraft and Diablo, years after they were released. Is it possible that they're planning for the game to come into its own performance-wise 6 months or a year from now?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @09:08PM (#3797855)
    I have a P4 1.6ghz with a Ge3 TI200 vid card, and I can turn the details up in 1280x1024 res with very little lag. Games are what push ahead the technology, and War3 is another example of technology being driven forward. You can get a system like this for $899 from Dell, and much cheaper building it yourself, so there shouldn't be any excuse for complaining that a game uses more power.

    There's going to be an awful lot of bitching happening when Doom III comes out
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @09:19PM (#3797912)

    Just like in the movie industry, its extremely hard to find something new that create a large new base of fans. Ska and techno slightly did it in music recently but its extremely tough.

    Actually you'll find there is very little "new" in popular music. Other than perhaps more modern recording and synthesis technology, but that has nothing to do with the music itself. Also, true ska has its roots in the 1960s and is hardly new.

    Likewise, as you realize, video games have basically congealed into a couple of archetypal categories out of which minimal deviation is allowed. Due to the huge production costs of modern games, no one will fund production of anything different. Now the only dispute is qualitative: should we regard this as negative or positive. You essentially argue that because it is amusing light entertainment, and whether or not it is particularly original or unique, or represents a fundamentally different experience than its predecessors, is moot. Contrarily, I would argue that purchasing this game, or practically any other produced today, amounts to a de-facto endorsement of an industry which has destroyed any shred of creativity and intellectual independence that once might have existed within it in favor, and if I want light meaningless entertainment I had just as well play tetris or fly a kite or something.
  • by Inoshiro (71693) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @09:23PM (#3797939) Homepage
    "1) It won't play smoothly on a P3 500 laptop (with 384 meg of RAM and an ATI Rage Mobility). Blizzard usually tries to get the low-end of the market. Not any longer"

    On my A750s with TNT1s, which are "super-duper" for 3 years ago, the play is acceptable like Starcraft on a P120. It's slower than top-of-the-line, but very playable. If you want to play a game released in 2002, don't have a machine from pre-1999. Is that hard to accept? If so, try console gaming. They can have much larger windows of games (release + n years) than an arbitrary computer configuration.

    Also, a Rage mobility isn't exactly a great 3D card to be using in a 3D game.

    "Screw it. If this game had come out 5 years ago, maybe. But Starcraft is better, and so is Age of Empires 2."

    If it had come out 5 years ago, it wouldn't be Warcraft 3. The Voodoo2s of the time (very high-end for 1997) can't do it acceptably. Starcraft and AOE2 are better for you because you have an old 2D-capable system. Essentially what you're saying (in your own words) is that you wanted something that worked on your old computer, and you're disapointed when it doesn't work like a game released 4 years ago (Starcraft). Again, I have to say, if you want to play games for computers released this year, own a computer with hardware from a maximum of 3 years ago. Try a desktop P3 with a GeForce 2 MX 400, I'm sure it'll do it more than acceptably.

    Or move to console gaming. You sound like you'd enjoy that a lot more.

You've been Berkeley'ed!

Working...