Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Warcraft III: The Single Player Experience 206

Posted by michael from the attack-of-the-undead-lawyers dept.
Disoriented writes "Cool interview about the Warcraft 3 single-player campaigns. Has me drooling for a June release." Hopefully Blizzard will drop their attack against Bnetd before the release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warcraft III: The Single Player Experience More

Warcraft III: The Single Player Experience

Comments Filter:
  • Blizzard has always been known for its multiplayer offerings, but ive always thought its games were better single player games than most as well

  • Priest character? (Score:5, Funny)

    by svferris ( 519966 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @08:03PM (#3540698)
    I wonder if I can choose to control a priest in the single player game?

    I could go around clicking on people until they say "Why do you keep touching me?"

    *Ducks the barrage of Troll moderations*

  • Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lazyhound ( 542184 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @08:04PM (#3540701)
    ...who wants to tickle the orc single player?
  • I'm glad that Blizzard is still alive and kicking through all the problems that the tech field seems to be having. I guess that as long as they can keep putting out new games that people will play, they have nothing to worry about.

  • If they don't drop the bnetd thing... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We can always drop our own beliefs and buy the game anyway!

    Hey, it happens all the time...
    • I can only blame the legislatures who passed the DMCA and the people who voted for them. Look at it this way: Blizzard is a for profit corporation with multiple shareholders, if shutting down Bnetd earned them just that little bit of profit they HAD to go after it. If not they would get a nice minority shareholder lawsuit for giving up profits based on moral(and not based on legal) grounds.
      • No. Don't ever fall for that trick.

        You can easily and justifiably blame Blizzard. They didn't pass the DMCA, but they are happily using it. If corporations were somehow decent or moral (yeh, I know) and refused to exercise the dubious privileges granted by the DMCA, it would be moot. Hell, it'd even be easier to repeal.

        Congress manufactured the gun, but Blizzard/Vivendi had absolutely no qualms about pulling the trigger.

  • Hopefully Blizzard will drop their attack against Bnetd before the release.

    Yeah, and that makes up for them launching it in the first place. Sorry, they'd have to do a lot more than simply "drop the attack" before they'll get me to respect them as a company again.

    • Yes, i think releasign full protocol specs, or maybe even some source code would be an appropriate gesture.
      • Uh.

        Yeah right.

        So Blizzard should release source code to satisfy programmers, who Slashrants(tm) how evil Blizzard is anyway? What good would that do Blizzard?

        1. Paving the way for pirating coming and existing Blizzard titles.
        2. Limit Blizzards posibilites to launch controlled betas.
        3. Satisfy a group of idealistic users who DON'T believe in a commercial model after all, so that they would .. eh .. buy it?


        I really don't believe, nor hope, this will happen.

        • Re:Makes it all better (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @01:15AM (#3541582)
          4. Give Blizzard an instant online community and pave way for larger acceptence of their game by the number of servers (which they don't have to run or maintain!) available.

          This is what Valve has done with Half Life. Why is this such a hard concept? Sell the game, but make the server freely available.
          • Why would they do that?

            It makes it easier for the average customer if they can view the online gameplay as a part of the game, without worrying about servers, connections and other alien terminology. (Yes, it IS alien for the average mortal.)

            Besides, I've had more problem with playing Half-Life online than using Battle.net.
        • Actually, the author's of bnetd prove we don't even need that. They wrote a superior product, without any of Blizzard's code.

          If I were one of the authors, I believe I might be satisfied with

          A) A public apology printed on a full page ad in the New York Times (or publication with similar audience).

          B) Proof that the lawyers who instigated and pursued this, if on the payroll, were summarily fired and will never be re-hired.

          C) Reimbursement of all legal fees.

          D) Small financial donation to pay for bnetd's webspace and costs to maintain a product that enhances Blizzard's own games.

          Then, I might be able to forigve them.
    • Um, isn't Blizzard's parent company the one who is pressing charges, not Blizzard themselves?
  • I've never been this torn over a video game before. On one hand, Warcraft III is probably going to be an extremely fun game, but I am having a hard time getting over the whole bnetd issue.

    I think it's going to definitely be a pirate-before-I-buy situation. I hate to say it that way, but we'll see...in 2 years when War3 finally comes out.
  • I would just like to point out that Warlords Battlecry II [ssg.com.au] is a far better game than Warcraft III can ever hope to become.
  • Could somebody post a mirror or post the text of the article?
    I'm at work and unfortunately the censorware has blocked gamespot.

  • What's that stuff about storyline? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SIGFPE ( 97527 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @08:37PM (#3540797) Homepage
    Who wants a storyline? I want gameplay. I skipped over the stupid cut sequences in WCII and got down to playing the actual game. Who wants tighter integration of cinematic sequences? I thought those sequences were just for screenshots for sales purposes. I don't want to have to watch them. Gameplay is what made WCII great! Not storyline, not cut sequences. Strategy and action!

    • Re:What's that stuff about storyline? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee@@@ringofsaturn...com> on Friday May 17, 2002 @08:45PM (#3540823) Homepage
      *raises hand* Me. Good writing in a game improves the feeling of immersion, which is very important to my enjoyment of the game.

      Sure, there are people who skip cut-scenes and don't read the docs, but I'm not one of them. When I pay $50 for a game, I want the whole kit and caboodle...good story, good art, good gameplay, good documentation, good UI...everything.

      Gameplay and UI are what made Total Annihilation great. Storyline and memorable characters are what set Warcraft (and Starcraft) above the pack.
      • Well they say the big studios like movies to catch the interest of at least two major ethnographic groups: geeks, Lifetime TV watchers, jocks etc. I guess Blizzard were smart enough to catch more than one group with their game too...
      • >Gameplay and UI are what made Total Annihilation great.

        And totally lame computer is what made any kind of skirmish game against the computer a joke. The programmer must have been a 3 year old. Its an offence even to mention it in the same paragraph as Starcraft. The AI in the Starcraft skirmish engine on the other hand was totally brilliant. It didn't just overrun you because it had more money to startwith (as in just about any other game), but it found weaknesses in your defences, tested them and then tried something else instead of boorishly trying the same thing over and over. And it ever boxed itself in (except on badly made user maps) it always found ways to expand, sourround and attack.
        Gawd i hope they make Starcraft 2 - I've always been more partial to a laser than some old sword *G*
        • When I pay $50 for a game, I want the whole kit and caboodle

        What if you could pay $30 for just the gameplay and none of the cinematics or voice "talent"?

    • Almost all of Blizzard's games have had a well woven story line within them. Just because you played War2 doesn't mean that's why the world did. I for one loved the story revolving around War and War2 as well as Starcraft and Diablo. One of the reasons I play RPGs in the first place is for a great story and Blizzard is one of the few companies willing to give me that in other genres as well, which I for one love.
    • Dude, the cut scenes were great in the game. Not only were they really nice renderings for their time but you always need plot in video games. At least I enjoy one when I play games. You just want level after level with no big movies to drive the game along? I don't understand.
    • Sometimes a storyline makes a great game better, I remember playing many space shooters, and then I came across Decent Freespace.. I was hooked, the story kept me wanting more, the cutscenes made me feel that I was actually part of the story. If a game has good action you'll play it for awhile, then boredom sets in, a good story on the other hand can keep you going back, and a great story can make you an addict.
    • Frankly, Blizzard's movies have improved immensely since WCII. Now they're better than most movies that come out in theaters. And if you played Starcraft, the cutscenes and the story were part of what made it memorable.

  • multi-OS games (Score:2, Interesting)

    by O_Sleep ( 199947 )
    Even with the whole thing about Blizzard and Bnetd. They are still one of the only Video Game Publishers that distribute their games for both Mac & PC in the same cd pack!

    As companies merge and take-over there will be more and more sections in them with conflicting (or passively disagreeing) ideals and methods. Just because one section does one action doesn't necessarily mean that the whole company is bad.
  • Warcraft 3 is awesome. A guy in my office was a beta tester, who "shared his experience" with the rest of us.

    The elf units are probably the most creative. Their "lifeforce" type magics are very inventive. And there's nothing quite like uprooting all of your tree buildings and attacking your enemies' base.
  • This isn't important news, and Slashdot would be no worse if this particular article wasn't posted.

    People are talking about sending in letters say, "I will not buy your products". That's nice, that's good even, but we all know Blizzard won't pay a huge amount of attention to a few of these. They would pay much more attention to Slashdot editors forwarding this post to them and saying they would have posted it, except that Blizzard is violating basic standards of conduct in the treatment of bnetd. Bad corporations don't deserve free advertising, and putting in a small note about bnetd does not make this any less of an advertisement.

    • Slashdot is primarily a news site, which should try to be as unbiased as possible in that which it reports to the world, they shouldn't ignore something just because some people might not like it. That's censorship - which the news is supposed to oppose above all else.

      • Laff (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Harr harr... Slashdot is not an unbiased news source by any means. Their baises are, in order:
        1. Linux advocacy, with a corollary to open source
        2. The Underdog, regardless if it results in board inconsistencies in the apparent Slashdot "platform" (and the instant it's no longer the underdog, it's on the chopping block)
        3. Science and gadgetry, regardless of lack of substantiation or extreme buzzword content.
        This story didn't fall directly under any of these biases, explaining why the original comment poster felt it was non-topical to Slashdot. Harr.

      • Re:Unbiased (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ian Bicking ( 980 )
        Slashdot is primarily a news site, which should try to be as unbiased as possible in that which it reports to the world, they shouldn't ignore something just because some people might not like it. That's censorship - which the news is supposed to oppose above all else.
        I agree that it is a sticky issue to not spread a bit of news because of its associations. OTOH, this article is just an ad... Gaming News is hardly real news, by even the most forgiving definition of news. The gaming publishing industry also has close to no journalistic integrity, so places that link to them have every reason to discriminate when the original sources choose not to. I'm not saying such not-really-news shouldn't be posted at all... but because of the entirely superfluous nature of the article, there's no journalistic requirement to post it. It's fluff, and it's an outright promotion of Blizzard's product. And again, that would still be fine, except that Blizzard is a bad company.
      • Slashdot is primarily a news site == wrong
        It's simply a DDos tool for people who can't code good.
  • Come on, if Blizzard is so bad for this lawsuit (and I agree that they are), then maybe slashdot shouldn't be posting free advertising for them.
    • Maybe it isn't free advertising. Commercial sites such as CNET's are very interested in the slashdot crowd ;-)
  • I think the slashdot crowd seems very torn over this issue, but it is quite simple.

    If you are against Blizzard for their bnetd actions, DONT PLAY THEIR GAMES!

    Seriously though, of all those who complain about bnetd being attacked, how many of you paid for your game?

    • of all those who complain about bnetd being attacked, how many of you paid for your game?

      I paid for mine.. several times multiple copies of Diablo, Diablo2, Diablo2 LOD (all of these for myself and as gifts), and single copies of WC2 and StarCraft.

      And they'll never see another cent from me if they don't drop the suit. (I was planning on buying WC3 and WoW - when it came out.)
    • WarCraft II Battle Chest, $60.
      Diablo, $55.
      Diablo expansion pack, $25
      Starcraft, $45

      I remember paying close to top dollar, no bargain bin copies for me. At the time, I remembered thinking it was worth every cent. Hope no belittles me for reconsidering that sentiment.

      Also, I find it unlikely that not playing their games will have any effect on their future actions. Not that I will play, just the principle of the thing. But I harbor zero illusions that I can somehow punish them.
    • well, i have paid for the blizzard games i play, and i expect i will continue to do so as long as they keep consistently making some of the most entertaining games out there. i may think that blizzard isn't handling the bnetd controversy in the best way, but i blame that on their corporate masters, who i'm probably supporting in some way or another regardless of whether i buy war3 or not. so if i'm supporting them by buying cds, or pissing in their urinals, or whatever other pie the conglomerate has it's fingers in, why not get a gaming experience out of it?
  • From the article: You are racing against an opponent to do the same thing with different results. There is no element of attacking his base.

    And they're calling it *craft??? WTF?

  • A trend that I've noticed is that everything is multiplayer now. Great games are the ones that everything is designed and scripted out, random attacks, plots, and sucky players don't make a game great, they offer diversity and may make it interesting but a true game is one that plays like a book, unfolding a plot in front of you. I haven't seen any good multiplayer games do this yet.
  • You'll be blown away. Just from playing on battle.net, you can already tell this a very in-depth game, gameplay wise and player wise. In some cases, it will not give you a mental break, period. You always have something to be mindful of in multiplayer, and not just your opponents / teammates. This is what happens when you roll of Blizzards popular titles, and the features most admired by fans, into one game.

    So I agree with Disoriented [mailto] on this, I am also drooling profusely for the full release to play this game in full. Btw, If there are those of you waiting as well, Blizzard recently updated it's projected system req's, and you can find them here [blizzard.com] (may have to scroll down the page a bit). Enjoy!
  • Frankly, I never really understood why everyone cares so much about Blizz leaving bnetd alone. I mean, I understand that bnet is a free service for the most part, and that people who use bnetd still have to buy the game so Blizz isn't losing money. But bnet is one of their trademarks and legal precedence is absolutely replete with people being nailed for marketting products with names and qualities too close to some other make. Consider also that the upcoming World of Warcraft will not be free bnet, so of course Blizz wants to cap non-Blizz bnet services now. Yes yes it would be nice if Blizz made *nix game offerings but hey, if you are smart enough to set up and run a dedicated *nix box, you are smart enough to be able to set up and use dual boot to Win32 for gaming purposes only. I fully confess that I have not read up a lot on the whole bnetd issue, but frankly I am a bit tired of little comments like the one about bnetd in above article featured on this site. Cheers, jacquio
    • ... and that people who use bnetd still have to buy the game so Blizz isn't losing money ...

      Actually bnetd does not perform the cd-key checks so people using bnetd do not have to buy the game. People using the real bnet do, cd-key generators are generally good enough for the installer but not good enough for getting onto bnet afterwards.
      • So? If I were to write windows software, I'm not legally required to do the whole WinXP serial checking, to make sure that the copy of windows isn't pirated. For good reason, that isn't the duty of my software, or me.

        If bnetd interacts with a game, it isn't bnetd's duty to check the game for validity. Legally or morally.

        That's right, you hit the nail on the head... keygens are good enough for the installer, in other words, piracy happens long before they go near bnetd. Bnetd has nothing to do with it.

        So, exactly why is it that bnetd should be illegal?

    • Re:bnetd (Score:3, Informative)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 )
      No, "bnetd" isn't one of their trademarks. They aren't accusing the bnetd developers of trademark dilution.

      Why is it, that everyone that defends them is a complete moron with very little understanding of the actual situation? And it does no good to point this out, because next week, your vapid little brain will have forgotten all this, and you'll latch onto yet another intellectual property term that you're incapable of understanding.

      Is Bnetd a trademark violation? No, nor does vivendi claim that...
      Is Bnetd a copyright violation? No, they didn't copy Blizzard's code...
      Is Bnetd a patent violation? Again, no, neither the games nor the network protocol are patented.
      Is Bnetd guilty of contributory copyright infringement? No, it isn't used to disable copy protection or trade games ala a p2p net, and all piracy occurs well before using bnetd
      Is Bnetd a trade secret? Not any more, and no bnetd authors have worked for Blizzard, this doesn't apply.
      Is Bnetd a military secret? Well, the pentagon hasn't lodged any complaints, though I sometimes suspect those 2 star generals like to play a quick game of starcraft from time to time.
      Is Bnetd guilty of pissing off a big corp with nasty lowlife lawyers? Yes.
      Is Bnetd safe, even though they've broken no laws? No. $$$= laws, $$$=favorable judgements. They might as well bend over, lube up, and spread their cheeks now.

      Are stupid fucking dimwits who claim bnetd is a piracy tool actually causing problems for the authors of bnetd? Well, yes, if indirectly. Every time a Sen. Hollings wants to pretend he has support for the latest consumer rape law, he can point to a retard like yourself, jacquio, and claim that he has the support of enlightened citizens. Your stupid voice is much louder, than my halfway intelligent protest.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • No, you fucktwit.

          It's used, so that I don't have to play on battle.net with cheating assholes like yourself.

          They wanted to implement cd checking, but Vivendi is too busy fucking people over like these guys. Failure to implement copy controls in bnetd isn't bnetd's problem. It's Vivendi's problem, and Vivendi isn't even willing to let bnetd fix it... which was actually rather thoughtful of them.

          And Vivendi's own legal arguments tell the fucking lie... they have no case, especially the one you're trumpeting. They are using some legally obtuse theory actually meant for dramatic stage plays.

          No, fuck you, you stupid syphillitic asswad. Fuck your lousy pointless trolling, and your seething hatred of logic and constitutional rights.

          Outlawing bnetd, is like finding a coffee shop that warez dudes hang out at, and shutting it down for that reason. The piracy happens someplace else, has nothing to do with the *legal* coffee shop, and the vast majority of the coffee shop customers are doing nothing wrong. It is a legal tactic employed by ruthless corporations accountable to no one, and performed by lawyers that should be disbarred and tossed in a federal prison cell for a few years.

          This isn't napster, napster actually performed, as its primary function, transferring the files around. This isn't a game cracking tool, which performs as its primary function the copy control breaking. This is primarily used by legal copies of Blizzard games, by people who want a little more control over the experience.

          Honest to god, is the entire world populated by retards like the parent posters? This hurts him too, and he's cheering it on. Humanity didn't evolve from proto-monkeys... it never evolved at all.
        • haha! it's so obvious that you've never *EVER* played on battle.net(TM). why would anyone want an alternative?

          1) begging newbies "YOU GIVE ITAM"
          2) asshole player killers "pK-zoN-MastEr has expressed hostility towards you"
          3) fuckin' idiots "hi, wait, what did you do? how do i accept it? omfg i can't switch skills"
          4) hackers who fuck up the economy

          i'll bet you think those are good things. unfortunately i like private realms. where the good players are found and invited to play on these private realms. good realms. battle.net(TM) will never be mistaken for a good realm where good players play.

  • Neverwinter Nights (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @10:05PM (#3541050) Journal
    Just a reminder to those of you who are boycotting Blizzard, but still want your fantasy gaming fix.
    Neverwinter Nights [neverwinternights.com] will be coming out this summer, and while it is an RPG (rather than RTS), it should do a good job of filling the void left.

    Though, personally, I was more excited about NWN than WC3 even before the lawsuit.

  • bnetd (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fizzlewhiff ( 256410 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .nonnahsffej.> on Friday May 17, 2002 @10:06PM (#3541053) Homepage
    Hopefully Blizzard will drop their attack against Bnetd before the release

    And if they choose not to drop it, I hope the community speaks out by choosing not to support them by buying it. It is really easy to bitch about companies and their policies but how many of us actually do something about it?

    I for one will not be buying it and will send them a letter explaining why I have passed up Warcraft III, and possibly future titles by Blizard.

    How many though will say they were wrong to shut down bnetd as they hand them $50?

    • Re:bnetd (Score:5, Funny)

      by jeffehobbs ( 419930 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @10:58PM (#3541197) Homepage

      How many though will say they were wrong to shut down bnetd as they hand them $50?

      Not me; I'll simply be handing them 50$.

      I'm not generally apathetic, but over this particular issue, I couldn't care less. If it turned out that Blizzard executives needed to drink the blood of open source programmers daily to ensure the continued high quality of their excellent titles, I would consider it blood well drank.

      ~jeff

    • Re:bnetd (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ahoehn ( 301327 )
      Thank the good Lord for warez, err.... did I say that out loud?
  • I posted earlier on this topic, and checked back just now. Good gravy what a bunch of self-righteous ZEALOTS live here! It's like if it isn't freeware a company doesn't have a right to make it! And how about those insults; someone here called the author of the article a "scum-sucking pig" just because said author sounds like he/she will purchase Wc3 even if Blizz doesn't leave bnetd alone. If you don't like something fine don't get/use it but then you'd better not be developing the crack for it and you'd better not slam other people for adopting the path the rest of us affectionately call the middle ground. Yeah I hate Microsoft for their marketting and all those other companies who take intellectual property to extremes but fanatics in anything (that includes open source and freeware) just plain SUCK. out.
    • Good gravy what a bunch of self-righteous ZEALOTS live here!

      Welcome to Earth.

      You may rest assured that our planet has plenty of happy people in the middle ground. It's just that we don't have people constantly going around saying "I'm happy with things the way they are!" (1) and so all you mostly see is a bunch of extremists shouting amongst themselves. Just learn to ignore these people or occassionally point and laugh at them (2) and you'll enjoy your visit to our planet.

      (1) - Well, there are some, but they usually get modded down or medicated.
      (2) - Don't laugh at the ones who are secretly working for the Orcs in hiding, they have really obnoxious lawyers.

    • The question wasn't whether Blizzard has a right to make what they want. The question is why they think they have the right to keep others from doing the same.

      Some of you retards need to have some sense beat into you.
    • Oh, you are just browsing with too low of a threshold 8^)
  • if vivendi does not drop the lawsuit, one could always get the game then play it on all the existing warforge-bnetd servers... that would teach them ;)

  • Forget it. (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by NetRanger ( 5584 )
    Until Blizzard drops the BNETD action I am not going to even look at their products again. Their blatant abuse of copyrights is sickening.

    I really wish Slashdot would grow a backbone about this as well, and stop posting these stories.

  • Beta Experience (Score:2, Insightful)

    by grey616 ( 560712 )
    From my experience as a (very lucky) beta tester, I feel the game will be awesome. After trying the multiplayer, I'm actually looking forward to the single player campaign, something I haven't done since Dune II. As for the bnetd issue, I feel that misplaced or misguided is a much better description then 'evil' of Blizzard's/Vivendi's actions. From Blizzard's point of view a week into the public beta, there were already more PIRATED versions of a BETA of its product then most companies get with a final. So acting to protect their investments, they attacked the first target they thought was responsible, none of this 'they are evil anti open source' bullshit.
    • Evil or misguided? Let's see. They are doing this intentionally. Their lawyers, who likely instigated this, know much more about constitutional law than I certainly do. They already have a boatload of money, and will certainly have more. They refused offers of making bnetd pirate-unfriendly. They decided on a course of action, and then alter their legal arguments to fit. (BTW: What is the flavor of the week? Still unauthorized public performances?) They have heard much protest, and refuse to back down, or even reconsider.

      I think evil fits more closely than misguided.

  • It won't matter... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Moridineas ( 213502 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @11:15PM (#3541236) Journal
    Bnetd won't matter when Warcraft3 comes out because then people can buy it to play instead, of pirating the beta--which is like 99% of the interesting in bnetd at the moment.
    • This seems about right. Unlimited battle.net time is free with your Blizzard game purchase--ask yourself how many people could have any honest motivation to use different servers.

      Here's one to ponder: rather than stealing from Blizzard, wouldn't it be easier for the mewling brats who are so torn up about this whole thing to wait till the next time mommy is strung out on crack that "Uncle Steve" gave her so she'd let him stick his penis in her mouth and just take a few $20's out of her purse (or off the nightstand where Steve left them--whatever) and go down to the local Best Buy and score a legitimate copy of the game?

  • Boycott Blizard (Score:1, Informative)

    by GryMor ( 88799 )
    Don't buy WC3! Blizard doesn't won't you as a customer as their maliciouse atack on BNETD has demonstrated!

  • The other interview (Score:2, Informative)

    by XMunkki ( 533952 )
    IGN ran a similiar interview [ign.com] with bill roper about the same subject.
  • hope y'all enjoy version number 16 or is it 18...

    cookie cutter video game design....

  • Reality check (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BelDion ( 109503 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @09:38AM (#3542306) Homepage Journal
    Hopefully Blizzard will drop their attack against Bnetd before the release.

    They won't, but let's face it: it doesn't matter. Has the MPAA stopped shoving css & other protection down our throats? Nope. Is everybody still buying DVDs and going to see movies? Yep. Has RIAA stopped acting like complete strongarm jerks? Nope. Is everybody still buying music? Yep. Is Microsoft still bullying the crap out of small corps & OEMs? Yep. Is everybody still booting to Windows to play games? (I'm looking at you Taco) Yep.

    We all get angry around here whenever some article is posted about evil corporation X, destroying small guy Y and screwing over populace Z. We're all up in arms about how we are boycotting them, and everyone should do the same. But we don't. We're just talk. Most of us anyway.

    So don't hold any pretentions. We're all buying Warcraft 3 when it comes out, bnetd or no bnetd. We're gonna buy it, play it on our windows partition while listening a cd and playing a dvd in the background.

    I'm getting modded down to flamebait aren't I? Crap.
    • I've bought every other game Blizzard has developed, but I'm not buying War3. When I said I wasn't going to play War3, I meant it.

      Stop assuming everyone else's conviction is as weak as your own. ;)
    • Jack is the environment in a fictional series of books that showed up in Fight Club, that was written from the POV of a part of Jack's (or Jane's) anatomy. "I am Jack's kneecap." "I am Jane's nipple."

      It's from Fight Club--but you allready knew that. :)
  • Warcraft I and II were downright boring in single-player mode. Every scenario, you'd build up some guys, dealing with the occasional visitor as you did so, and then wander out to an enemy infestation.

    Create a formation. Send a fast unit forward to draw them out. Fall back. Swat them as they charge haphazardly into your formation.

    The only time the game really got interesting was on the second-to-last scenario of each campaign, where both sides had a lot of stuff, the game was biased against you, and you actually had to struggle to stay on top. The final scenario usually had some game imbalancer that could be exploited, like the summon spell that let you destroy whole bases easily without risking "real" units.

    Games like the original Command & Conquer and Total Annihiliation worked, I think, for a couple of reasons. One, the base defenses were formidable, and those were usually pre-set by the game designer rather than the AI. Either you came ready to rock & roll or the static defenses would tear you apart. Two, when the computer came to get you, it didn't come for a polite social visit. The computer would build up a large collection of units and then send 75% of them right down your throat. Without solid defenses backed by the right mix of units you were going to get destroyed, or at least crippled to the point where an immediate counterattack was out of the question.

    Remember the dreaded Mission 7 in TA? You have a skinny piece of beach and about 10 minutes to prepare for an onslaught of enemy warships? That's good stuff.

    Warcraft I and II had static defenses that you could ignore until it was convenient. Slow firing, low damage, especially compared to the NOD energy tower or TA heavy laser. The enemy units sort of wandered at you, one at a time, when they got bored.

    Age of Kings did a pretty fair job, with the computer coming after you in force. My only complaint with AOE2:AOK is personal preference: I'm a "builder", and the bonuses they gave to the computer made it difficult to win a single-player scenario if you built up your forces instead of attacking quickly.

    In many ways the original C&C got it right and many of its successors got it wrong. I've played every single-player scenario in WC1 and WC2, and because of that experience I never bothered with StarCraft. Maybe they'll fix it this time?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't panic.

Close