Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 504
Warcraft III runs on Windows 95/98/2000/NT and Mac OS. My setup was easy as pie, which was surprising since I run WinXP. And, on a side note, I was running it on a LCD screen and had no problem. Blizzard has an effective video setup that allows you to customize the game to match your hardware by changing the resolution, model detail, animation quality, texture quality, particles, and lights. This is especially helpful if you're running on an older machine and still want your game to run fast. The sound setup even allows you to have Dolby Surround!
I'm always disappointed that Blizzard's betas only let you play multiplayer, but that's life. In multiplayer mode, I found my abilities only let me get about 30 minutes into the game before I was demolished by the hard-core players. Maybe it was me, but Warcraft III seemed to have a faster pace than the previous two releases. The pace is a double-edged sword, because some players like their video games to be fast paced while others like to take their time. I think Warcraft II is somewhere in between Urban Terror and Civilization III. So, until I can take it low and play in a single player campaign mode, I'm counting the days until Blizzard releases Warcraft III 1.0.
Most important, if you're looking forward to the game, be assured: the gameplay is cool. This time you have a choice between four races: Human, Undead, Orc, or Dark Elf. Your race really doesn't matter in multiplayer mode; winning basically comes down to building everything up quickly and creating a massive army with which to crush your opponents. Or in my case, getting crushed.
This is where one of my favorite features comes into play. When enemies are attacking you (or your allies), the map flashes, letting you know that there is a throwdown and you should send in backup. Features I'm looking forward to in the upcoming release include: LAN games (five laptops, five six-packs, you know the drill), the single-player campaign, map editors, and polished cinematics. I realize that cinematics may not really be a game feature, but I can down a tub of popcorn when I'm watching Blizzard's cinematics, they're just that cool.
Warcraft III gives new meaning to strategy RPGs. If you like to play pure strategy games where your only goal is to be the last one standing, this game is for you. If you like games where you can take a character, build him up, and watch the character grow over the life of the game, this game is for you. Warcraft III is a successful cross between the two genres. You can build your basic Orc Grunts and go fight the enemy, but you can also build Heroes. Each class has different Heroes with which you can gain experience, attain new levels, and learn new skills. Warcraft III even lets you carry around an inventory!
I think the biggest improvement that Warcraft III has over its predecessors is Blizzard's ever more impressive graphics. With a decent video card, the graphics are crisp and clear. Nowadays, 3D is the name of the game, and Blizzard again comes a step closer to reality with this strategy role-playing game.
Hello? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean really.
Re:Hello? (Score:3, Interesting)
Like MPAA bad! - New Bladerunner DVD good!
This is Slashdot, the great virtual melting pot of opinion, don't expect it to make sense.
Re:Hello? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Hello? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hello? (Score:4, Interesting)
Blizzard has recently been practicing the "good fight" by using technological rather than legal means to try and slow down the crackers. One of their patches took a week to crack, and another one took only a day but it was rather funny since the game found out if you were playing a cracked version and generated invincible hostile monsters in your base.
I also don't think Blizzard would have been just so plain inept in their action if it was their own. Vivendi managed to legally attack all the wrong people while missing the Warforge team that actually made the Warcraft III beta playable. Eventually it seems that someone from Blizzard came to IRC and talked to the leader in a civilized and normal fashion. I don't think the details of this conversation ever came out but it is the opinion of some that they came to some sort of private agreement, which certainly seems possible.
Tim
Re:Hello? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd reckon that were one of the Bnetd developers to get a beta (not so hard to imagine, come to think of it), and review it, it would be just as positive -- the guys really have to love the game francise to invest their time and energy in it as they have.
Besides, love the game but hate the seller? There's an age-old (well, at least as old as Cat-Fur and Ascii Express) answer to that one...
t.
Re:Hello? (Score:5, Informative)
It's up to you to decide whether you're still going to support Blizzard or not.
Re:Hello? (Score:4, Funny)
Do you think I would tell people I use Linux if it wasn't leet?
sorry, sometimes I crack myself up;)
Re:Hello? (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot has posted quite [slashdot.org] a [slashdot.org] few [slashdot.org] articles [slashdot.org] about the evils of the DMCA. Since Slashdot has stated many times in the past that they believe the DMCA to be bad, that means they have taken an active position against the DMCA, as well as companies that use it to bully people into doing what they want.
And guess what Blizzard used to shut down bnetd? That's right! The good 'ol DMCA.
Re:Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think it's possible that not all of the slashdot editors will agree on every single topic? One editor might post a story that another editor could completely disagree about. They're not all mindless automatons controlled by a hive-brain.
Is there a Rogue-like version? (Score:5, Funny)
@@@@
@@@@
@@@@
All armed with ) and wearing ]
RTS is dead (Score:4, Interesting)
RTS is dead. Its all about who's the 1337 D00D that can build up his army faster and rush the enemy. Adding 3D and new races isn't helping. You need to force strategy on the opponent. Games like Conquest:Frontier Wars [ubi.com] is a game thatforces stratgy on the player, and removes the micromanagement. That needs to be done to bring RTS back to life.
I'm afraid WarCraft3 is nothing more than an upgrade of Warcraft2. Sure, its pretty, and will entertain for about a week, but it'll all come down to who can rush faster.
Simple and older Conquest game (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Simple and older Conquest game (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple and older Conquest game (Score:3, Interesting)
Very true! (Score:2, Funny)
It wasn't fun at all, and the game lasted 20 minutes (the only reason it lasted that long is because I had some fishing boats and kept them moving, heh).
I agree with you 100%.
Re:RTS is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
The races do matter, and have enourmous differences. Undead have pretty easy expansion (without requiring a town hall). Sure, you can rush with all races, but if you get past the rushing stage with a counter-rush, then the strategy comes into play.
If it is purely rushing out quick units, then I definatly should've won some games. In one game, I maxed out the food supply with huntresses. And I got killed by a small human army, thanks to stupid blizzard spells and the like. The focus is on micromanagement more than ever, not rushing.
And by your reasoning, isn't FPS dead as well? Quake 3 is merely an upgrade of Quake 2. Its all about the 1337 D00D who memorizes item placement and map layout, right?
Re:RTS is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just as bad. Micromanagement means the person that knows the hotkeys better, and is quicker with the mouse wins. That isn't strategy.
And by your reasoning, isn't FPS dead as well? Quake 3 is merely an upgrade of Quake 2. Its all about the 1337 D00D who memorizes item placement and map layout, right?
I haven't played Quake since Quake1. I play games like Halflife mod Day of Defeat (and Halflife itself), and System Shock2, Thief, and Deus Ex. There are innovations in FPS.
Re:RTS is dead (Score:4, Informative)
Instead, try out Kohan: Ahriman's Gift. This RTS removes nearly ALL micromanagement and focuses gameplay on strategic buildup and battlefield.
Or even Warlords: Battlecry 2, which handily beats WC3 at its own game... and also removes a lot of micromanagement, and brings along better RPG elements.
If you put it that way... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with most genres is that few companies seek to truely innovate. "We need the next Quake Killer!! Okay, we'll Quake, add 2 more new features, it'll drastically change the game!" -- the market suffers from that. Westwood's Command and Conquer series somewhat suffers from 'cookiecutter-itis' where they rehash the game a few times too often.
It's easy to say "well, I guess the genre is dead because it's all more of the same", but when you do that, you're forgetting about games like StarCraft and Age of Empires. Those weren't just subtle upates to the theme, but drastically different strategies can be used in those games.
I would agree with you that RTS is basically dead when all the companies make 'me-too' products, but when Blizzard comes along and reinvents the genre, I wouldn't be willing to call it dead yet. If anything, it'll inject fresh life into it. From what I've read so far, Blizzard has been hard at work making this into a new type of game. It will be really disappointing if they prove me wrong.
Re:If you put it that way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Modding is our friend in video games. It requires that the next game you sell needs innovation. Otherwise, you'll just be beat-out by a mod.
I'm surprised Wolfenstein and Metal of Honor are selling copies with mods like Day of Defeat [dayofdefeatmod.com] for halflife. Same "general" idea, but the mod is free if you own halflife (if you don't its only like $5.00!).
Re:If you put it that way... (Score:2)
Think WC3 will support mods? Im glad Game companies have mainly embraced that practice. If the Game Industry was like the RIAA
A hint about strategy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A hint about strategy... (Score:3)
I'm not really a big RTS gamer (frankly, I suck at them), but these are the complaints I hear most often. A "fun" game is one in which there is more than 1 viable strategy.
To expand your chess comparison... what if you play real-time chess? Then if someone can move that bishop and queen out faster than you can move that pawn up, you'd always lose to a rush. (Even this is flawed, since in chess it's alot easier/more efficent to defend than attack, and thats not the case in most RTS games - the opposite, in fact)
Re:A hint about strategy... (Score:3, Informative)
I've won several Starcraft ladder games against rushing opponents, because I was properly prepared for them. When their rush failed, they were left in a weaker position, which I was able to capitalize on. I tend not to choose rushing as a tactic (unless my initial exploration indicates a vulnerable opponent), because think I'm good at organising large, well developed forces effectively. People who only play rushing games don't get much practise at the strategic and tactical interplay that goes on higher up the tech tree - and often lose when they find themselves in that situation.
Of it is (Score:2)
If Warcraft III is just Warcraft II with omre units and 3D, I will be disappointed. It will be like starcraft.
I'm sorry, the Myth series ruined the whole Real Time Strategy genre for me. Having a game where the combat, which is in the end how the game is decided, under your control is just awesome. Things like terrain height, distance, etc. all affected how effective combat was. The fact that archers missed their targets was awesome.
Does Warcraft III have any semblance of a physics engine at all? Or is it just 3D artwork with pre-defined strike damage, etc. ?
Re:RTS is dead (Score:2)
Re:RTS is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTS is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
"Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."
(Oh, now I remember where [astrian.net] I first saw this...)
STRATEGY IS NOT CONTROLLING UNITS!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Strategy is in building, planning, and managing resources
They *what*???? (Score:3, Funny)
I see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I see... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can remember a "Black and White" review and release slashdot did, along with many other games, and lets not forget the countless movie reviews...
Your point is useless. Being a starter of conspiracy theories, allow me to tell you to do some additional work. WC3 is news for nerds (yeah, us nerds play video games). You shoulda did something like point out that its made from people that "killed an open source project (bnetd)" and
Sheesh!
Re:I see... (Score:4, Funny)
Um... you did complain about that one didn't you?
Slashdot is allied with Blizzard... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Slashdot is allied with Blizzard... (Score:3, Funny)
Report to your nearest re-education center doubleplus soon.
Screenshots (Score:4, Informative)
Funny how (Score:3, Funny)
Warcraft is a strategy game; it's all about building your empire and smashing the other guy's. Not about trying to play out your character quirks as a ruler.
Before anyone starts (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like Louis Farrakhan [sp] and the million man march,
just like the MPAA and LOTR or the Matrix or Tron or SW or whatever,
just like the RIAA and [your favorite band here],
it's perfectly possible and not hypocritical to hate Blizzard and want to fuck them five ways from Friday and still enjoy Warcraft III.
possible but INSANE (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but (Score:4, Informative)
Blizzard is evil; here, take my money.
If you hate the messenger, don't support him/her/them by giving them money. Make a stand and say, "No, I'm not going to give you my money because you are trying to crush the little guy." If you tell them that you won't let them do that, they'll soon learn to embrace their user base.
Until then, they'll keep walking all over us. And while they do that, I'll continue to not buy any Blizzard games, simply because I won't stand for that kind of corporate abuse.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you went to a restaurant where the waiter slapped you really hard every time you walked in, would you keep going there just because the soup is good?
it's perfectly possible and not hypocritical to hate Blizzard and want to fuck them five ways from Friday and still enjoy Warcraft III.
Bullshit. If you don't agree with what a company does, you don't use their software. If you do, you're a hypocrite. It's as simple as that. Hence, that is why I no longer use Windows. I got sick of Microsoft's bullshit (and Windows bullshit too), so I did something about it. (I'm not one to drag Microsoft into every argument, but this one is appropriate. I'm not pandering to Slashdot by saying this, I'm simply stating truth.)
I'm not one of the whiners that whines and complains about how horrible something is, but still continue to use it. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
In this instance, Slashdot, specifically timothy, is the messenger, and Blizzard is the message.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2, Insightful)
The MPAA & RIAA can afford to buy legislation like the DMCA and the SSSCA/CBDTPA because of people buying their movies/albums.
When cash (not votes) is the currency that buys legislation, and cash (not justice) is what drives the legal system, you need to vote with your wallets.
Of course you can enjoy the message and hate the messenger. But paying the messenger his liveliehood because of the message really contradicts any moral stance you might take.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
Of COURSE it's possible. If you have no balls whatsoever.
Taking a stand is meaningless without taking action. Bitching about Blizzard and then buying their product is about as ball-less as you can get. Placing personal pleasure above ideology is not only wrong, it's abhorant. "Oooh! I hate Blizzard! But LOOK AT THE SHINY NEW TOY!"
Whatever man. I ain't buying SHIT from Blizzard. See, I believe in acting on my beliefs, not just spouting off shit on /.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
In other words, you have twisted priorities. 'Im going to punish Blizzard by not buying this game.'
Which is fine, go do that. I'm not, though. And you better not tell me I'm a bad guy for it . You see, the games industry is about making games better. A company like Blizzard sets out to do a game, and they don't do it until they know it's ready to go. Arguably, Blizzard's games are really high quality.
It is more important to me that Blizzard continue to keep making games. It's important to me as a game player and important to me as an artist. I don't want to work at a company that says "ooo here's a good game, how can we quickly make a game just like it?"
So I *am* going to support Blizzard. I don't like what they've done, but the good they have done outweighs it.
Disagree with me if you like, but don't accuse me of being hypocritical because I'm supporting higher quality standards in the industry.
It's like the Lord of the Rings example. LOTR is a good movie! We *want* the MPAA to make good movies. If the movies weren't supported, we'd all still be using VHS instead of DVD. Think about that. It's a balance of priorities.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
The problem is that we have to give them an incentive to change their behavior. We can't just say, "Well, I wish they wouldn't do that... but I'm going to buy Warcraft 3 anyway." As long as they're raking in the dough, they don't care about a few whiners. They also don't care about a few obnoxious people that aren't going to buy the game anyway.
What's the solution? Who knows. It would probably take a lot of publicity and a lot of criticism from respected review sites. A few people complaining in the comments section of Slashdot isn't going to cut it.
Re:Before anyone starts (Score:2)
Ok! I admit it. I use MS Money! There I said it. I'm not proud of it. I'd use quicken, if they'd have offered a free evaluation download (they didn't at the time don't know if they do now). I tried using gnucash. It took me about 2 weeks to get the data into gnucash in a sane manner. It took me about 4 hours to get it into MS Money. And maintaining updates from my financial institutions in MS Money was simply an issue of importing a file - a 5 minute process at most. Doing the same thing in gnucash was a 45 minute process at best!
I hang my head in shame for choosing non-free software (ironically enough called "money"), especially non-free software from the evil empire. But I couldn't find similar, effective software in the free software world.
Oh, and just so you know, MS Money may have the easy functionality, but of course it wouldn't be a MS product unless it contained some really seriously fscked up bugs. Like in the budget section, if you add a monthly bill or deposit, and then decide that you're going to delete it. Your budget doesn't reflect the change for a couple of months! Which completely screws up any sort of automated tracking. A phone call to MS about this got a "yeah we know about that" but no plans to ever actually fix it. I guess lieing with lions, I should expect to get bit.
still made for the common denominator? (Score:3, Interesting)
I always feel cramped playing blizzard games in their enforced low resolutions, to the point where I really don't enjoy playing them. The control panel takes up too much screen space, the buildings are too large, and I end up fighting with the interface when it comes to getting done the things I want done.
In other words, does anyone know? I notice the faq says they're upping the available resolutions.. but that doesn't say much as you could have 1600x1200 and still have a graphic rendered to take up one third of the screen.
If the game doesn't provide zooming out and camera rotation, ala Myth, count me out.
WC3 runs in WineX CVS! (Score:3, Informative)
Check it for yourself if you have it.
You still need WineX to announce that you have DX8 support. After that if you are NVidia user WC3 picks up OpenGL as a renderer.
The will be problems authenticating with BattleNet but hopefully next WineX release will be able to deal with them.
Which MacOS? (Score:4, Interesting)
We are currently developing WarCraft III for the PC and Macintosh and have no plans for versions on other operating systems.
Would have been nice to know if was going to be available under OSX or Classic. Perhaps I just missed where it was listed??
Lacking details? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO Blizzard has always done a good job differentiating the races. In Starcraft, for example, you could not play the Protoss and Humans in the same way. They were so different that a new strategy was required for each. I can't see them taking a step backward with their flagship product in that respect.
I'm looking forward to in the upcoming release include: LAN games (five laptops, five six-packs, you know the drill), the single-player campaign, map editors, and polished cinematics.
Hmm. So you're expecting the game to be finished? Come on now, what are the neat features that those of us who haven't been following the beta forms don't know about? What innovations has Blizzard come up with this time? Undoubtedly they have something more than a flashing map, "letting you know that there is a throwdown and you should send in backup." That feature has been in several previous RTS's. Where's the meat in this review?
not that anyone else cares.... (Score:2)
Did you setup a bnetd server to play on? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Did you setup a bnetd server to play on? (Score:2)
War3 classes and info (Score:3, Informative)
Um... (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't that like saying green in somewhere in between black and white?
Re-hashed Games are So Lame! ...yet... (Score:2, Interesting)
but what about the AI? (Score:4, Interesting)
Until RTS games have decent enough AI that when your grunt is done building that fort you assigned him to build he goes and either returns to his previous job or starts doing some other productive job, I won't play them. I don't want to micromanage a bunch of grunts, that's my boss's job
Re:but what about the AI? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:but what about the AI? (Score:2)
If you want half-decent TacAI, try a hybrid TBS/RTT game like Combat Mission. Since turns are one minute, even if the TacAI misjudges things you get control afterwards for the next minute, and your opponent uses the same TacAI as well. The micromanagement edge is reduced (some extra effort will still pay off, like using different view levels to verify hull-down status and so forth) and frenetic clicking simply isn't an issue.
The "Close Combat" series can probably had for pretty cheap now, but vehicle AI was pathetic (going out of the way to drive into buildings, or approaching enemy tanks rear-first, and similar boneheaded mistakes), there were some AI cheats (notably, CC2:ABTF, the AI ignored supply rules -- e.g. "cut-off" paras got reinforcements even if you captured the LZs and the road network was still in German hands), and the single-angle presentation really hampers seeing changes in elevation.
EU was a vaguely passable RTS (so slow it's almost *real*-time...), but the various interface mistakes, asymmetries between AI and player, half-baked wild-ass random diplomacy (e.g. in one game as Austria, it was easier to build an alliance with Islamic countries that hated me, than with Spain which nominally loved me at +200...), the "history but no game play" manual, and other irritations *really* put me off. That, plus they pushed out EU2 ASAP.
Re:but what about the AI? (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps a future RTS will have an AI-oriented language you can use to give "intelligence macros" to your units. Imagine the community you could build around sharing/developing intelligence strategies!
Of course, between work and family I hardly have time for games anymore anyway, so this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical matter for me....
They've got 'em already (Score:3, Funny)
I believe the original Command & Conquer[*] worker peons would finish a job, then look around for something to build/repair/harvest. The worker Imps in Dungeon Keeper have a priority list of things to do if you haven't assigned them anything (claim any unclaimed ground, reinforce any un-reinforced walls, scavenge dead bodies, etc).
Right now I have a hard time keeping track of my Citizens in Empire Earth because if something needs doing within their line of sight, they wander off and start working, and then I can't find them. (I have the most efficient, productive, confused society ever!)
[*] Made in the bad old days before Westwood could hire professional actors. I believe the man who plays the bad guy (Kane? Cain? sp?) works in the Westwood financial division or something. That's really cool. :-)
Re:but what about the AI? (Score:4, Informative)
For example, the vast majority of the time the ore is spread out across the map. Quite often you'll find yourself telling 4 villagers to create a gold mine next to the gold deposit for mining purposes. You'll 'remember' that you did that oh 20 minutes ago when you run out of gold and they'll all be standing next to the mine scratching their asses.
The expansion pack 'guesses' that you want them to mine the nearest resource to the building-type you just built. So, those 4 villagers after creating the mine will go ahead and start mining gold. Giddy up!
Most RTS games will allow you to have units 'patrol' or 'guard'. MS AOE2 also has the ability to set threat levels for units attacking - attack and follow till enemy is dead, 'defensive' meaning that if an enemy gets close the units will attack but not past a certain range and will go back to where they were before, and 'stand ground' meaning your units will NEVER move from their position and only ranged units will attack. It requires micromanagement but it adds to the game play a bit since you don't have to worry about a bunch of foot soldiers chasing after a single scout cavalry unit who leads them back to an ambush to be slaughtered.
Re:but what about the AI? (Score:2)
And showing where units are on a minimap has been standard for a LONG time -- even "The Ancient Art of War" had that. It wouldn't be hard to add a filter-by-type selector.
But, they probably won't. If I'm right about the design philosophies behind StarCraft and WarCraft 2, Blizzard specifically wants to reward micromanagement and limit the interface power, as that makes the skirmish AI more competitive -- making an AI micromanage everything at the tactical level is much easier than having an AI coordinate everything well and come up with a coherent game plan. Likewise, there is no excuse for limiting unit selection to twelve (as was done in both those games) except to limit ease-of-use; since the AI doesn't run out of keys for groups, it's another bonus for the computer player.
When tactical AIs are good (or even "not pathetically braindead" -- e.g. WarCraft grunts blithely standing around while the grunts next to them get smacked by catapults), then the burden shifts to the strategic/operational AI to compete.
And that's hard. Good CM players can demolish the CM strategic AI in a "fair fight" or even under fairly adverse conditions, and much of the reason is that the game design makes micro largely irrelevant -- plus, CM's design does not permit AI scripting on a per-scenario basis aside from strategically pre-planned reinforcements. If CM players had to constantly worry about managing every squad and team in their battalion, in real time, while also manuevering maybe 40+ tanks, the game would be a LOT harder versus an AI except for the most-obsessed micromanagers.
For WarCraft's behavior... well, I remember doing some trials in WarCraft 2. Peasants would blithely walk unescorted into Valleys of Death (lots of towers) if they ran out of their original gold mine and the only other one they knew about was yours. Oops. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if WarCraft 3 took a similar approach -- braindead tactical AI, braindead strategic AI esp. where scripts aren't involved, huge AI hordes with allmap cheats and perhaps production bonuses, and micromanagement potential up the wazoo -- because a) it's easier to program, and b) it still sells hotcakes.
I'll take a hit for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm just bitter. My friends and I spent many many hours playing Warcraft II, and while an updated Warcraft II is nice, I was still expecting more.
this review was.... (Score:5, Interesting)
"winning basically comes down to building everything up quickly and creating a massive army with which to crush your opponents. "
Yawn. Boy how original. In 1984.
Hmm, theres combat, and that part of the screen flashes, gee just like every other RT strat. game.
Yawn.
Has Dolby Sound, could be cool, unfortuanatly a very small percentage of there payer will have a speaker set up for this. I'd hate to think the game took so long to develop because of this.
Detects your hardwaye, now thats new. oh wait, no its not. Yawn
"Warcraft III gives new meaning to strategy RPGs. If you like to play pure strategy games where your only goal is to be the last one standing, this game is for you. If you like games where you can take a character, build him up, and watch the character grow over the life of the game, this game is for you. "
didn't you say its all about building up fast earlier in your review?
How where the graphics? did you need to look up anything in the manual, or was the interface intuitive? did you try it with different settings, on different machines? in which way is it better or worse then WarcraftII?
When Considering the reputation of Blizzard, and comparing it to the reputation of Slashdot, I'll believe the reviewer just isn't any good at doing a review and assume Blizzards game is going to be good. Mind you, thats only because I've enjoyed their *Crafts series so much.
Although I couldn't stand Diablo.
ALTERNATE REVIEW (Score:5, Informative)
First, the graphics. Very cool, but at the same time a bit dissapointing. You can't rotate the camera. At all. All you can do is zoom and tilt from a near overhead view down to an angle closer to the ground... but the camera ALWAYS faces north.
That being said.. it works great. The game plays just like Warcraft II, but with much cooler graphics, and more unit diversity. Extremely easy to dive right into if you've played Warcraft II or Starcraft. I disagree with the reviewer that it's all about the rush. It's not. Blizzard is going for a smaller, more diverse army approach. Unit limit is 90. Which brings us to heroes. (I can't BELIEVE the reviewer didn't talk about heroes)
Heroes are what really make Warcraft III more compelling that its predecessors (which is very high praise) These are like RPG characters.. they have experience, they level, they can collect magic items, they get really powerful magic spells. They ALSO increase the combat effectiveness of any group of creatures they lead into battle.
All this means that instead of hordes of faceless grunt swarms, you have smaller, more carefully built and selected combat groups, led into battle by a character you've worked building up, who actually has a name, who you actually care, yes care about his welfare. You will know despair when you see the message "Lord Darkthorne (Lvl 8) has been slain in combat".
Despite the lack of camera rotation, the 3D graphics are VERY well done. Creatures don't look like polygons, they look almost hand drawn. I just wish they had pushed the envelope with the 3D technology a little more. Ground Control is a perfect example of how to do camera control in a ground based 3D RTS. And camera control is everything. It's what made Homeworld so amazing.
Overall concluding thoughts? I was dissapointed with Diablo II, I thought it was almost a (very large) expansion to Diablo I, with a stupid quasi-3D graphic gimmick. I am NOT dissapointed with Warcraft III. It shines of Blizzard quality. The legendary Blizzard play balance and more importantly, personality, is here, and here in spades. Warcraft III is going to FLY off the shelves when it's done. And they have MONTHS left to improve it even more! I can't wait to see what the campaigns are like.
Re:ALTERNATE REVIEW (Score:3, Interesting)
You need an MPQ extractor and you edit ui/miscdata.txt, you can make it so the games zoom in functionality will rotate instead.
I think it would cause errors if you actually tried to play it like this with other people though.....
Tim
Which server? (Score:5, Funny)
One reason NOT to but WC3: (Score:2, Informative)
Its not bad but ... (Score:4, Informative)
First part of game
and while your doing that the person / team that is going to win the game is simply MASSING troops for a huge rush.
Second part of the game
Even with the Upkeep system in place it still seems that the teams with the most troops wins.
WineX supports War Craft III (Score:5, Informative)
However - you DO need to subscribe to WineX in order to use the final release of WarCraft 3 due to the fact that WineX will support the copy protection that will come on the WC3 CD.
Subscription is $5 - worth every penny IMHO.
Re:WineX supports War Craft III (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the copy protection support in WineX is very limited. Don't take it as a fact that it will work with the final version of WC3 without a crack...and even then, it's not a gaurantee.
Check the transgaming.com web site for details on other games (Alice & Tony Hawk's Pro Skater) that sometimes work...but often don't specifically because of the wonders of Macrovision's Safedisc CD cripple ware.
Where's the review? (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted it's only multiplayer, but the gameplay is only glossed over. So what happened during those 30 minutes you played? How was the networking? Was there lag? What about the interface? Argh... this review was written by Brittney Spears. Damn it... Where's my -1 voting button when I need it?
Shitty review, read here for the real deal (Score:5, Informative)
I'm beta-testing also, so let me give you a better explanation:
There are 4 races (already mentioned). Each one of them have very particular strategies that make them suited for different players. The real twist on WarIII that breathe life into a dying RTS genre are the Heros
Each race has 3 heros available. Generally one is a melee, one is a caster, and one is a mixture. Your first Hero only counts against supply (food), but the next one will cost money. Heros gather experience from battle, and you can level up their skills (similar to Diablo II). These skills range from the area-effect spell Blizzard to 'auras' that enchance all the units around your hero. At level 5 your hero gains an 'ultimate' ability that can turn the tide of battle. One of the undead heros can raise all the dead bodies in an area to fight for him, that's pretty powerful.
Neutral units and buildings are scattered around the maps. You must fight the units, and you can use the buildings for hiring mercenaries or buying potions/buffs/spells. This doesn't sound like that big of an addition, but attacking an enemy player who just finished mixing it up with a large group of 'creeps' (the slang for these units) can give you a huge advantage.
Upkeep is the single most revolutionary part of the game. Those familiar with RTS games know all about supply/food/houses or whatever. Traditionally you can only support finite number of units, and to handle more you must invest more money into your base. Upkeep slashes a percentage of your gold relevant to the size of your army. For instance, I might have an undead base with a pile of ziggurats (undead 'farms') that allows me to support 90 units (the game max). If I only have say, 10, I'm in 'No Upkeep', which means that 100% of the gold my acolytes (undead peons) mine goes into the bank. If I decide I want to beef up my defenses with some abominations (undead heavy melee), say 5 or 6 of them, I'll move into 'Low Upkeep'. At this point 30% of my gold is being diverged into
These features, coupled with some really cool little ideas (Orc Raiders gain resources from enemy bases each time they attack a building, human peons and be turned into militia, elven bases can uproot and attack enemies, and undead units heal when on their own land, just to name a few) make WarCraft III much more pleasing for any player. Sure, you can play fast, or you can be defensive and prepare for a long game. Either way you will marvel at the graphics, laugh at Blizzard's sense of humor, marvel at the huge number of strategic possibilities, and have a smashing good time.
*troll on*
I don't wanna hear a single comment about the bnetd stuff, I'm happy to pay them $50 for hours and hours of mindless-computer-fun, and I understand them wanting to keep the online play within their control.
*troll off*
Moderators, see if you can replace my text with that slop that timothy called a review...
Re:Shitty review, read here for the real deal (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that Warcraft III offers no real advancements over Kohan which came out over a year ago?
Re:Shitty review, read here for the real deal (Score:2)
I wonder how that would have helped, considering the fact that timothy didn't write the review...
Does timothy know what a Beta program is? (Score:3, Informative)
It amazes me that people can't think through why this is the case. Put yourself in Blizzard's shoes (ok, brrr). If you release a Beta that's a stand-alone game, why would the tester every buy the full product when it comes out? People are cheap, and that's why there's rampant copying of the Beta (hell, even I have a cracked copy).
The purpose of a beta program is to test the product (interface, network utilization, balance), test the market readyness, and expose any critical bugs that might hinder a good rollout. If you're players are on your network you can get a pretty good idea of a lot of these things (I wonder if the program does a callback if there's a crash/etc.). If it's standalone, not only would you have to have finished standalone missions (hint: they're probably still being produced/tested), but you'd lose out on any ability to monitor critical statistics. On the other hand, if you people do warez your Beta, and connect to your network, at least you have more useful stats from determined fans.
On the side of the BnetD v. Blizzard, I can see their point of view. They make great games, cater to the user even after the sale (battle.net [battle.net], custom maps [battle.net]), they make sure that their games are reasonably compatible with older hardware (I can still play Starcraft with my 5 year old laptop)... and what happens? Major Anger because people want to steal their beta program and play it off their network? Of course, I understand the problems with Blizzard's position in this case, and I support the EFF. I've made my donations in the past, but I'm just a bit iffy on this case.
On a side note, I hope they fix the balance issues with the Undead. Undead are way overpowered.
Fear my L12 Step Ladder Hero... (Score:3, Funny)
"Slashdot was lucky enough to get a beta copy of Blizzard's upcoming Chutes and Ladders: Vertical Assault. So, CmdrTaco and Hemos locked me up beneath a stairwell and forced me to play for the last week..."
"This time you have a choice between two races: Chutes or Ladders. Your race really doesn't matter in multiplayer mode; winning basically comes down to building everything up quickly and creating a massive army of chutes (or ladders) with which to climb to the top. Or in my case, get climbed over."
Impressive Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
You (the Slashdot "editors") just gave me the biggest laugh of the day. After all the hype about Blizzard's attacks on Battle.net clones, you guys come out with a fanboy, suck-up article for Warcraft III. Not unexpected, but definitely a sign that Slashdot is losing its relevance.
This article leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like a Jon Katz polemic. So much for Slashdot's "reputation" as a "defender of freedom." I wonder if Katz will write an article about how people let fanboyism get in the way of their putative idealism?
As for me: I'm donating the purchase price of a Warcraft III to the EFF, and I'll find other fine games to play. Morrowind [morrowind.com] looks terrific; Heroes of Might and Magic 4 [celestialheavens.com] should be fine, too.
Until now, I've bought and played heavily every game Blizzard has produced. But no more; I don't need Blizzard, and I won't support their misuse of copyright. In my book, Blizzard is no better than the Scientologists, in that both breed cults of ill-manner folk, and then get their dander up when anyone dissents.
Great, last time Blizzard..... (Score:2, Funny)
This is one of the first /. articles... (Score:4, Insightful)
We totally trash Blizzard for, well being assholes and shutting down a project like BNETD which people use for legitimate purposes using the DMCA, then
My Warcraft III *BETA* Impressions (Score:3, Informative)
The one thing I found difficult about Starcraft was playing Terran and managing my army effectively. It takes considerable concentration and experience to utilize the advanced units effectively (lockdown ghost, EMP sci vessels, optical flare medic, etc). This is the type of control you need for Warcraft III. You need to be in the mindset and constantly moving, doing things. Resource gathering has been completely deemphasized.
Another difference is that when I'm attacking, it doesn't feel so much like I'm actually killing anything. You see their little health meter go down, but to me, it doesn't FEEL like I'm kicking ass. In Starcraft, it actually felt like I was kicking ass, or getting my ass kicked.
Visual Observations
The graphics look good, but aren't what I would call spectacular. Although, it looks amazingly sharp on my 17" LCD w/ GF2 Ultra. I'm still trying to figure out why zooming would ever be useful. You see, it's basically a top-down view like SC, but you can use your mouse wheel to go from top-down to a 3rd person type of view. It's somewhat neat, but useless IMO thus far.
Hardware Requirements
I loaded WC3 on a P2 400 to see its performance and man was it slow. I must have been getting 10 FPS. You're going to need at LEAST a 600 MHz processor with a decent video card (GF2MX).
Overall
There are tons of cool things about WC3: Heroes, auras, multiplayer game auto selector based on your rank, etc. If you're curious, check out a full blown review somewhere.
A good game, but not as good as I was hoping. I'm hoping the final version will have something the Beta is missing that will make me change my view.
What the fsck? (Score:2, Interesting)
You bash the DCMA, SSSA(or whatever it is called) and all the others, but then you don't boycott blizzard for killing bnetd?!
You even write a god damn review!?
Microsoft/Ensemble RTS: Age of Mythology (Score:3, Informative)
-AP
Gaming, plain and simple (Score:3, Interesting)
The way I see it is this...Blizzard is arguably one of the top software gaming manufacturers worldwide. The gameplay might not be a huge improvement over SC and WCII, but there is a change in the hero char. aspect, inventory, and from what most of the review sites say, less need to mindlessly gather resources.
I know that the company is backed by some shady roots that throw the DMCA around like it's thier own personal problem-solver. Does that mean I'm not going to buy thier game, No.
I'm a gamer, and I support Blizzard. They make great games. The simple fact that it seems everyone is missing is that BnetD and the like are putting out a software that has the direct repercussion of cutting into Blizzards profits. Why that is being overlooked is beyond me. Sure they engineered it from the ground up (or so it's being said), but the fact still remains that BnetD is a pirate utility promoting NOT purchasing a full licenced version of W3.
If any one of you owned a business which produced a software, and some outside source put up a utility that basically let any jackhole on the web download an ISO of your CD-ROM and play it multiplayer (which, let's face it, is the entire premise of these types of games) for free, effectivley pissing on your bottom line (monitarily that is), you'd be irate to, and find any legal loophole there was to shut them down. Blizzard did just that, and I say Bravo.
BnetD asking to use Battle.net's CD-Key verification was a total farse. Blizzard saw the fact that if they opened up that kind of information that it could be much more easily exploited...who knows how secure the BnetD guys really are...would you risk your couple hundred thousand dollar investment on it...hell no you wouldn't. Do you know how easy it would have been for BnetD to just overwrite any CD-Key you typed in with a valid one and send that to Battle.net for obviously successful verification?
Think it through guys, they are protecting thier investment and any one of you would do the same think if you had that kind of money riding on it.
Bottom line...Blizzard makes great games, to continue to do that, they need to make money. To make money, they have to shut down those out to exploit thier product for free.
Sorry for the rant, but that had to be said
-Grover
Re:The real question, Linux port via Transgaming? (Score:2, Insightful)
Again.. dont get me wrong.. I like Linux a lot, and have always argued against Windows, but the 'this is more secure than that' argument doesnt really hold too much water IMHO.
I have heard of them... (Score:2)
WINE is a bandaid. It's NOT a solution.
Re:Fuck Blizzard! (Score:2, Informative)
From their FAQ:
Are there any plans to port a Linux version?
We are currently developing WarCraft III for the PC and Macintosh and have no plans for versions on
other operating systems.
Re:bnetd case. (Score:2)
Of course, if we *really* wanted to make a difference, as a community, we would use this release as our opportunity to not support Blizzard. By NOT buying their latest game, we would directly affect their coiffers. If even a small fraction of the slashdot community were to combine a boycott of Warcraft III with a letter explaining *why* they didn't purchase it, we might even get a message across.
I doubt it, though. Principles are hard; playing games are easy. Why make an effort? *sigh*
Re:bnetd case. (Score:5, Funny)
I couldn't care less who does their hair.
Re:WHORES (Score:2)
Community (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I really want to ruin this AC's day by telling him/her that Slashdot is a diverse group of people, each with their own principles and opinions ?
Slashdot's editors are free to post whatever they think is worthy. If that means CmdrTaco and Hemos post a review of WC3 while Michael reports on the crushing of bnetd, so be it. Face it, it's better this way. If it were just Rob & Jeff's Droolworthy Games, or Michael's Anti-Microsoft Rant of the Month, the site would have gotten stuffed a long time ago.
Re:WHORES (Bingo!) (Score:2)
Blizzard shuts down innocent websites and programmers, and you guys go promote their fucking products?
How about SHOWING SOME BACKBONE?!?!!
Boycott Blizzard!
If
Fairness cuts both ways...or should we just give up the pretense of fairness?
Re:WHORES (Score:2)
This reminds me of the Slashdot reaction to Tivo's privacy violations.
Re:Are you sure it will be released 6/02? (Score:2)
Triv
Re:Slashdot Hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what? Some of those people are interested in Warcraft III. Some of them don't care or even agree with Blizzard's actions over Bnetd.
You assumed that the posting of a previous story was some sort of editorial stand, when in fact it was just another story.
If you want to give money to a 'cause' give it to the EFF or GNU or someone like that.
You WANT group-think?! (Score:5, Insightful)
So when Sony admitted that they had invented a fake reviewer to generate favorable quotes for movie ads, did you write a venomous missive to your local newspaper, calling them hypocrites for a good review of "Black Hawk Down"? Because that is real journalistic integrity. They didn't let the misconduct of Sony's marketroids alter their opinion of the film. (Hypothetically speaking. For all I know, your local rag hated "Black Hawk Down".)
I don't seem to recall a post stating that all the editors got together and agreed that Vivendi/Blizzard are a bunch of soulless corporate bastards, and shall never get good press from Slashdot again. (Come to think of it, I don't seem to recall a post stating that all the editors got together for any reason. Unless a lan party at CowboyNeal's place went horribly wrong, and they're all sworn to secrecy. <g>)
Slashdot has no collective editorial opinion. It's quite possible that, while Michael loathes Blizzard for daring invoke the DMCA to squelch an Open Source project, Rob may agree with Blizzard that bnetd will let punks war3z them out of business. I don't know that for sure, but it illustrates the point that the editors are individuals. Each one posts what he thinks is important, and let's the reader make his or her own judgements.