Warcraft III : players verdict ?

[Sean Tudor]

So all the official websites are saying Warcraft III is the best thing since sliced bread.

I'd like to hear from you guys - is it worth buying ?

Obviously I have played Warcraft I, II, StarCraft, Diablo I, II.

[wumpus]

Yes, it is worth buying. Sixty bucks for the standard version is highway fucking robbery, though. If you can wait, you should. More importantly, What Would Supertanker Do?

Also. If you subscribe to the "click on units and they make teh funnay!" school of game development, you will adore this game. Personally I hate that type of novelty crap since it tends to be a cheap substitute for quality gameplay. But that's not so in this case, and I have to admit, some of them are hilarious-- and way the hell out there. There are references to Iron Chef, Celebrity Jeopardy, even Bon Jovi.

[Doug Erickson]

It's worth buying for the SP game and the slick production values. The tired MP can go rot, fancy lobby or nay. The game is still as dumb as ever, desperately needing the interface and AI more recent RTS titles like Kohan and WBC2 have made me take for granted. The story play is really well done, though, and the game just reeks of that whole Blizzard polish I love. Sound's top notch. With a fun pulpy story and memorable characters, I can forgive the gameplay for feeling ever so 1997. I can't do that for MP, where the game degenerates into another tedious Blizzard celebration of meaningless micromanagement and unit babysitting. Boo.

That said...

Greg Kasavin's review on GS, despite needing an editor, seems to be the worst case of apologism I've seen for the game yet. I swear, these "hype validation" reviews are getting out of hand - are pro game reviewers that afraid of their more avid readers? Sorry, Greg, luv ya and all, but that review was pretty wretched (I lost count of the number of sentences starting with an conjunction, never you mind that the game review really didn't dig into the gameplay at all). In our desire to play it safe and meet readers' expectations, could we at least work in a LITTLE meaningful criticism? Y'know, just to keep Blizzard on their toes and to give their competition credit where credit is due? Am I asking too much, here?

[Doug Erickson]

There are references to Iron Chef, Celebrity Jeopardy, even Bon Jovi.

I hate that shit. Pop culture gags don't work for me, unless they're really bloody esoteric.

[Doug Erickson]

starting with an conjunction

"a conjunction", even, just because grammar gripes always lead to the more persnickety readers around here sniping from the cover of anonymity. Never mind that message boards are largely informal, as opposed to formal reviews - but hey, something has to keep Met_K busy.

[Supertanker]

I heard there is a secret level where you have to keep your troops in clean clothes. Instead of gold mines, there are borax mines, and instead of trees, there are huge piles of dirty uniforms around the map. You send your peons out to bring loads of the dirty laundry, borax, and water to your castle, where it is all put into the "scrubbing que," generating clean-uniformed soldiers. The add-on pack will let you add sock-sorting and floor mopping, too.

[wumpus]

With a fun pulpy story and memorable characters, I can forgive the gameplay for feeling ever so 1997

This game is no Kohan, to be sure, but there are a few key innovations (all of which Blizzard arguably stole or borrowed) which keep it from being a total micromanagement fest.

For one thing, units keep logical formations WITHOUT being explicitly told to do so. Eg, archers and support in the back, heroes and melee up front. I know, it sounds trivial, but for whatever reason, it's not common in the genre.

The auto-cast option is an absolute lifesaver. It's too bad that you're limited to a single "special" spell per unit that can be toggled this way, but regardless-- it's a crucial enhancement.

I like the "upkeep" development limiter, too. Once your population gets to a certain size/cost, you incur overhead: all of your resource mining is penalized a certain percentage. This should help with the "rich get richer" problem these games tend to have.. smaller forces will gain resources more quickly than larger ones.

Hero management is a nice gameplay addition which keeps things varied and interesting. They level up, gain abilities, collect powerups, etcetera.

As I said originally-- this game is not a rehash of WC2, it's the summation of everything that Blizzard has learned about the RTS genre. Eg, a lot. Now, whether they were out innovating or busy copying from the guy next to them is up to you to decide. But the game is solid.

NOTE: I can't speak at all for the multiplayer. I'm finishing up the final campaign. However, I will agree that Kasavin's review could go a lot lighter on the ass-kissing smarm, and a bit heavier on the actual criticism.

[Aszurom]

To me, it looks a LOT like Battle Realms... altho the gameplay is more refined and less confusing in the unit department.

The AI, at least from the 4 human vs 2 AI coop I just experienced, seems to be fooking BRUTAL. Just when we thought we'd whipped their asses, they came back with a metric shitload of stuff and wiped two of us right off the map.

Wumpus - what's your SA forum screename?

[Anonymous]

I will agree that Kasavin's review could go a lot lighter on the ass-kissing smarm, and a bit heavier on the actual criticism.

What if there is nothing to really criticize?

Here is Kasavin's review, btw. Good reading but a bit long.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...873347,00.html

Read it before it gets locked up! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :!: :!: :!: :!:

[Anonymous]

Anyone else really irked that Blizzard didn't use the new small boxes BTW? The art is great, but it won't fit on my shelf.

[Doug Erickson]

By AI, I mean pathfinding. I still have to babysit my formations - for success in MP, you simply can't rely on auto-casting or the auto-formations. Battlecry 2, on the other hand, is smart enough to allow me to relax my micromanagement efforts and focus on real strategy/tactics.

[Anonymous]

"I lost count of the number of sentences starting with an conjunction"

Fuck dude, quit it, As if the what is art thread is not bad enough I now have to read this kind of shit. And after the warm love in of everyone posting their real lives, I was feeling so fuzzy.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else really irked that Blizzard didn't use the new small boxes BTW? The art is great, but it won't fit on my shelf.

Funny, I'm staring at the small box on my desk right now.

Unless you're refering to the Collector's Edition...

Not sure if it was worth the wait, all being said and done, but it's not bad so far, but was just hoping for a far lot more.

--- Alan

[Kool Moe Dee]

Played a few games of MP today with some friends. It's strangely unsatisfying -- the upkeep limitation is painful enough that you're forced to attack at inopportune times. It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available -- not sure if I like that because it still favors the side with more resources. Heroes I equate with the Commander in Total Annihilation -- they only really do a lot of damage if you're micromanaging them, and only if you surprise attack, or attack while your opponent is busy somewhere else. It's also hard to select guys in the heat of combat, which makes it hard to cast spells.

Computer AI is like Starcraft -- still has problems dealing with isolation/funnel maps, and still seems fairly mindless/relentless. Overall, multiplayer is OK, but not really as improved over Starcraft as I had hoped it would be. I can't speak for single-player since I haven't tried it yet.

The production values are just out-of-this-world, though...it's an extremely pretty game...

(edit: spelling)

[Dave Long]

Sounded like Chick has played Warcraft III quite a bit. I'm curious if he thinks it's on the same level as Warlords Battlecry 2 which so far this year is clearly the best RTS available in his opinion based on the review in CGM. I agree 100% with that review so I'm really wondering where Tom stands on this one...

--Dave

[Anonymous]

So was Dungeon Siege.

Year of High Production Values! Everything gets a 9.0 or higher!

[Ben Sones]

Played a few games of MP today with some friends. It's strangely unsatisfying -- the upkeep limitation is painful enough that you're forced to attack at inopportune times.

I felt this way too, at first. Eventually you realize that the game is best played with smaller forces, and you plan on it. It's not meant to be a big, grand strategy game. It's more like an RPG with skirmish combat. It would have been nice if they had provided more "non-standard" MP game types to highlight that, however.

The best strategy is to create the smallest army that you can use effectively. After lots of playing, I find that I prefer this to the WC2 method of "build as much as you can and then steamroller the enemy."

It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available -- not sure if I like that because it still favors the side with more resources.

That doesn't really work, since upkeep isn't based on number of units but rather food consumption. Powerful units consume more food.

Heroes I equate with the Commander in Total Annihilation -- they only really do a lot of damage if you're micromanaging them, and only if you surprise attack, or attack while you're opponent is busy somewhere else. It's also hard to select guys in the heat of combat, which makes it hard to cast spells.

I haven't played a whole lot of MP yet (5 or 6 games), but in the solo game they are nothing like the Commander in TA. Heroes, used effectively, are the most important units in the game. And the fact that they get new skills and can use items is pretty nifty, too. Casting spells on group members in the heat of combat is easy; casting spells on enemy units can be tricky, however.

Overall, multiplayer is OK, but not really as improved over Starcraft as I had hoped it would be.

So far, I pretty much agree. But try out the "special" scenarios. One is a hero-only dungeon crawl that plays like Gauntlet. The other... well you just have to experience it.

I can't speak for single-player since I haven't tried it yet.

Best part of the game. Go play it. Really.

[Doug Erickson]

I picked the game up at CompUSA and got an "original sized" box, with a creepy blue chick on the cover. It's not the collector's edition, anf it sure ain't one of the new boxes.

[Mark Asher]

"It also seems to encourage people to build the most expensive units available"

But then those take up more population points (or whatever they're called) and make you hit your limit faster.

[wumpus]

I finished the game, finally. Geez, it's long. I didn't care for the nutty outtakes reel at the end, or being admonished to finish the game on "hard" to see what ADDITIONAL nutty outtakes I get to see.

I wasn't expecting this game to be very good, so I was pleasantly surprised. Personally, I think it is enough of a departure from WC2 and SC to be interesting. At least Blizzard tried to address some common criticisms of their previous games; time will tell if they were successful or not.

Now that I've completed the single-player training, I'll have to get around to playing multiplayer one of these days.

Are there any other interesting RTS games on the horizon?

[balut]

There are 4 different non-collector's edition boxes for WC3, one for each playable race. I picked up the one with the "creepy blue chick", cause the Night Elf chick is kinda cute compared to the other boxes. My friend at EB said the Undead box was selling the best, and the Human cover box was selling the worst, for whatever that's worth. And yes, all of the boxes are the new, smaller size.

As far as multiplayer goes, at least for the hour I played it, the Warchasers multiplayer scenario was a blast - it's like Gauntlet meets Diablo, and you can tell what cartoons the developers watched as children: some of the character choices selectable are "Optimus Primo", "Megatron X", "Mumm-Rah", "Snake Aes", and "Skeletorus".

Oh, and how about the click-phrases of what looks like a unit of Living Armor (I haven't played through the campaign yet so I'm not sure what unit it really is). Basically, the unit looks like a suit of giant armor with nothing inside - when you click it enough, it starts talking about "smoke" and even mentions "puff, puff, give" at one point. Funny stuff, and I guess I wouldn't be surprised if at least one person at Blizzard puff'd the magic dragon every now and then.

- Balut

[Supertanker]

I'm predisposed to hate RTS games because I am not entertained by the constant building of structures and units that are the usual focus of the game. Usually no amount of careful or thoughtful building will provide you with a sufficient defense or offense - you just need a horde.

I also dislike when units don't fit what I think of as logical use and deployment (Example: in Red Alert, why can an attack dog kill numerous soldiers with automatic rifles? Maybe they are just very weak, since they can't lift their guns high enough to shoot at an air unit, either.) I think I mentioned once on the old boards how I hate figuring out how the designers decided to alter the rules of Roshambo each time.

Despite all of this, I decided to give W3 multiplayer a try at a LAN party, since it supposedly had innovations that might cut down on these things I hate. Well, no, it does not, at least not so you would notice. The battle will still be carried by who builds the biggest army the fastest. It is just now a "big" army is 20 units instead of 100.

The illogical Roshambo problem remains, too. Here is where I ran into it. I was playing the Humans, and trying to build and improve as many gunpowder units as possible so I would have a lethal, long-range army. Riflemen, cannon towers, mortar teams all are meant to attack enemy units with range and power. As I move along the tech tree, I find I am able to build Steam Tanks. I figure this is what I am really trying to get - a nice combination of armor, speed, and ranged hitting power to take out enemy units. I'm also put in the mind of Warhammer and the various Dwarven war machines crushing and blasting the enemy. So, I start spending my dwindling gold to build Steam Tanks so I can wrest control of another gold mine. I finally have a few ready, and I send them into battle. This is where I learn that unlike every previous gunpowder unit that I could build, Steam Tanks cannot attack enemy units. What the hell is that?! They couldn't name them "Siege Engines" or "Steam Trebuchets" to give the player a clue that the rules on gunpowder use suddenly change at that spot on the tech tree?

The heroes were a big rush-oriented problem, too. When combined with the AI monsters on the map, they seem to guarantee that one player will dominate the game. Each player starts out basically sealed into their starting area by the monsters. We had several players in our game try to take them on early and get slaughtered. However, using a hero someone finally did kill a bunch of the monsters and gain the attendant items and experience. Now we have one player on the board who not only has the strength to break out of their starting area and gather more resources, but has the strength to break into the other players starting areas and wreak havoc. As I recall, the successful hero was 5th level versus the 1st or 2nd level heroes for everyone else. At that point, it was game over for the rest of us, and for me permanently.

[Mark Asher]

I played the multiplayer beta and the game was indeed owned by players who could build and expand quickly. The early rushed may be discouraged by the game makeup to some extent, but all that means is that instead of getting zerged five minutes into the game, it happens 10 minutes in.

The hero adds micromanagement to the game, as does the need to expand and control additional mines so you can afford to expand your armies and take the taxation hit. In many ways Warcraft III's multiplayer seems to demand more micromanagement than did Starcraft's multiplayer. At least in Starcraft you could take your shot with an early rush and win or lose. In Warcraft III you have to spend a lot of time building up to the inevitable rush.

That was all from the beta. Haven't played the final yet. Maybe it's different.

[Bernie_Dy]

I'm playing through single-player mode now. It's good but somehow lacks the impact that WCII had. From what I've seen so far, it hasn't dramatically changed the basic style of play. Yes, the heroes add some wrinkles, but like Mark said, they also add micromanagement. I like them best in scenarios without much building, where you don't mind the micromanagement as much.

It sounds like the game is available in three sizes of box. I got the old-fashioned game box size, but obviously a few of you found the smaller format or the CE format.

[wumpus]

Like it or not, any RTS game with resource gathering is going to be a resource gathering competition. Barring utter incompetence on the part of the players, the person with the most resources will win. There are some tweaks you can make to ameliorate things a bit, but I'm convinced that it is, in the end, an insoluble problem. The only way around it is to remove resources entirely, ala Myth.

If I've learned nothing from RTS games, I've learned this: all wars are economic wars.

On top of that, there's the "hidden" resource of time, which can also make or break you. If the other guy has 5 combat units and you have none, you're screwed-- even if you both have the exact same quantity of resources.

[wumpus]

What if there is nothing to really criticize?

Mea Culpa. All hail Warcraft 3, the first perfect game!

[Kool Moe Dee]

Even if the more expensive units take up more food, then they seem to be more effective than an equivalent number of cheaper units -- even if the cheaper units are concentrating fire on them. I'd have to play some more MP to get a better feel for this, but this is the impression I got.

[Supertanker]

There are some tweaks you can make to ameliorate things a bit, but I'm convinced that it is, in the end, an insoluble problem. The only way around it is to remove resources entirely, ala Myth.

Yes, if you want to actually focus on the combat, resourceless games like Myth, Ground Control, Combat Mission, et al. are the solution. The focus on building and gathering is why I call RTS games "chore games."

[Anonymous]

Ground Control was great. Online play was broken though, because of ONE thing. Static Respawn Points

Drop in matches were interesting for all but 5 minutes. Then people would just place artillery around the respawn point. I dont know if this was fixed in the patches or free expansion.

[Anonymous]

I don't know wumpus that's not ENTIRELY True. I'll take a couple good examples kohan and strifeshadow. With all the spells and directional damage in strifeshadow along with strong unit counters you can easily win with a far inferior force. In Kohan flanking matters Though not as much as it should a stiffer morale penalty for flanking and routing attacks along with directional damage would do wonders. Oh and it needed stronger counters.

Largely though yes its economic war but is that so bad? It can be deep as deep and compelling as tactical combat. One thing rts's need to do is have a more interesting building componet. Decisions that matter certain buildings canceling out the option to build others perhaps? Different terrain for different building types is good anything that encourages people to go be active instead of turtling.


Oh yeah WARCRAFTIII ROCKS! LALALALALALALA.