New Game From Blizzard!!!!

[Pidesco]

Cheap. Go ahead and visit. I don't even have a car.

 

 

 

 

Warcraft III sucks and blows at the same time.

[Tale]

I'd threaten the cat in your avatar, but... aww... kitty.

[Pidesco]

I don't think N

Edited April 2, 2007 by Pidesco

[Big Bottom]

I've probably put around 3 times as many hours into Warcraft 3 than I have into any other game. It has it's faults but it's probably still one of the best multiplayer experiences on the internet. This is not one of Blizzard's better April Fools jokes though.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Big Bottom

[kirottu]

Why is this one open when the other April Fool joke thread was closed?

[Pidesco]

Because here there has been a post with the word "facestabbing" in it. That makes the thread awesome and unlockable.

[ramza]

Why is this one open when the other April Fool joke thread was closed?

 

I am sure it's because of what I said...

[Calax]

War3 was too hero centric to actually have much in the way of a "war" feel to it...

 

It felt like D&D with a skillion hirlings cluttering the battlefield. If they had pulled heroes from multiplay there'd be alot moreo strategy rather than "Get my hero to max level so he can one shot an army"

[Maedhros]

I can't get enough of this game. Bought it some 3-4 years ago and I'm still playing. Starcraft is probably better, but the ladder system and custom games Warcraft 3 offers is just plain superior.

[Musopticon?]

I played Warcraft 3 so much before I relaised I actually don't like it. I really like Azeroth and all the characters, but the game is just so lacklustre compared to Starcraft. A hero-driven clickfest and microhell in multiplayer. Starcraft had strategy, WC 3 is nothing.

 

God, I wish they would gone with the original plan(post-WC Adventures), which was more akin to Myth than Diablo. Thrall as a main character would worked better anyway. Granted, the whole corrupt human plutocrats against the heroic orcish freedom fighters isn't the most original of premises, but the narrative could have supported the small-team of hero-led separatists gameplay model. The game looked to be aspiring to a likeness of Shiny's Sacrifice, which might have been anything but bad.

 

That is all past though. WC 3 is fun if you find a good opponent in multiplayer, but is has nothing on Starcraft. Not to mention DoW or Ground Control 2 now years later.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Musopticon?

[Calax]

I played Warcraft 3 so much before I relaised I actually don't like it. I really like Azeroth and all the characters, but the game is just so lacklustre compared to Starcraft. A hero-driven clickfest and microhell in multiplayer. Starcraft had strategy, WC 3 is nothing.

 

God, I wish they would gone with the original plan(post-WC Adventures), which was more akin to Myth than Diablo. Thrall as a main character would worked better anyway. Granted, the whole corrupt human plutocrats against the heroic orcish freedom fighters isn't the most original of premises, but the narrative could have supported the small-team of hero-led separatists gameplay model. The game looked to be aspiring to a likeness of Shiny's Sacrifice, which might have been anything but bad.

 

That is all past though. WC 3 is fun if you find a good opponent in multiplayer, but is has nothing on Starcraft. Not to mention DoW or Ground Control 2 now years later.

except that WC3 is MADE for things like "UMS" maps

[Diamond]

Why is this one open when the other April Fool joke thread was closed?

It is apparent now: mod bias.

[karka]

Those were forum user's jokes, but this is Blizzard's. Whatever

[Musopticon?]

I played Warcraft 3 so much before I relaised I actually don't like it. I really like Azeroth and all the characters, but the game is just so lacklustre compared to Starcraft. A hero-driven clickfest and microhell in multiplayer. Starcraft had strategy, WC 3 is nothing.

 

God, I wish they would gone with the original plan(post-WC Adventures), which was more akin to Myth than Diablo. Thrall as a main character would worked better anyway. Granted, the whole corrupt human plutocrats against the heroic orcish freedom fighters isn't the most original of premises, but the narrative could have supported the small-team of hero-led separatists gameplay model. The game looked to be aspiring to a likeness of Shiny's Sacrifice, which might have been anything but bad.

 

That is all past though. WC 3 is fun if you find a good opponent in multiplayer, but is has nothing on Starcraft. Not to mention DoW or Ground Control 2 now years later.

except that WC3 is MADE for things like "UMS" maps

What's that, Cal?

[Calax]

I played Warcraft 3 so much before I relaised I actually don't like it. I really like Azeroth and all the characters, but the game is just so lacklustre compared to Starcraft. A hero-driven clickfest and microhell in multiplayer. Starcraft had strategy, WC 3 is nothing.

 

God, I wish they would gone with the original plan(post-WC Adventures), which was more akin to Myth than Diablo. Thrall as a main character would worked better anyway. Granted, the whole corrupt human plutocrats against the heroic orcish freedom fighters isn't the most original of premises, but the narrative could have supported the small-team of hero-led separatists gameplay model. The game looked to be aspiring to a likeness of Shiny's Sacrifice, which might have been anything but bad.

 

That is all past though. WC 3 is fun if you find a good opponent in multiplayer, but is has nothing on Starcraft. Not to mention DoW or Ground Control 2 now years later.

except that WC3 is MADE for things like "UMS" maps

What's that, Cal?

It's term me and my friends use as a holdover from starcraft UMS stands for Use Map Settings. In Warcraft they changed it to "custom Senario".

 

Warcraft is made for that sort of thing because of the hero system it has. You can make anything a hero and give it insane stats and lvls.

[Lord Elden]

No it was boring* and the graphics sucked.

I didn't find it boring but the graphics *are* bad. Why make it a 3D game when StarCraft (and WarCraft II) looked much better in 2D...?

[theslug]

Warcraft 3 was an amazing game. You obviously only played the game to the point of you getting your ass whooped or something becuase heroes weren't over powered or anything like that. Most games heroes only get to lvl 5 or 6 if you are lucky. Even then their spells can't one shot units. A death knights lvl 3 coil can't even kill a tier one archer so you don't know what your talking about. And the fact that its still played today after 5 years and there are sites that still analyze match ups and strategy further shows you don't know anything. Yeah I'll agree it's very micro oriented and hero oriented but thats doesn't mean there isn't strategy. You go mass hunts, ill get some fodder and throw some seige behind them and we'll see who comes out on top. Or just using piercing. Yeah the strategies are pretty simple but everything has a counter and that makes the game unique.

[Calax]

Warcraft 3 was an amazing game. You obviously only played the game to the point of you getting your ass whooped or something becuase heroes weren't over powered or anything like that. Most games heroes only get to lvl 5 or 6 if you are lucky. Even then their spells can't one shot units. A death knights lvl 3 coil can't even kill a tier one archer so you don't know what your talking about. And the fact that its still played today after 5 years and there are sites that still analyze match ups and strategy further shows you don't know anything. Yeah I'll agree it's very micro oriented and hero oriented but thats doesn't mean there isn't strategy. You go mass hunts, ill get some fodder and throw some seige behind them and we'll see who comes out on top. Or just using piercing. Yeah the strategies are pretty simple but everything has a counter and that makes the game unique.

Well part of the general dislike about it is that a single hero could turn an army into nothing with good micro. (I've seen a friend use a lich and a death knight to dismantle an entire base without support.

 

Your average hero ability is able to cause TREMENDOUS damage when used properly. The strategy part of the game changed from

 

Use a massive army to murderize your opponent

to

Use a itty bitty army and a trio of powerful heroes to turn your opponents army into cheese and then kill his base.

 

yes it is strategy, but its strategy that fits more with an RPG's minigame than to a out and out RTS. Add to this the fact that the army size was shrunk from other games by a HUGE amount and the game is generally disliked because it didn't play like it was hyped to be (four MASSIVE armies battleing eachother to save/end the world).

 

And strategies depend. generally they can be pretty complex because of the fact that almost every unit has an ability that you can activate.

 

Blizzard tried to take what was already good and make it perfect with the heroes violated the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and they got bitten in the rear for it (ie they got taken over by vivendi) and so now we won't see the end to the Warcraft story because WoW will go until it's no longer profitable, then they'd probably try for another SC or Diablo.

[theslug]

ok you may be right but thats why you get heroes too. Yeah dk lich combo is pretty harsh no matter what race you are, but i mean you put up a tower or two and unless you've let them creep the entire game they shouldn't be much of a problem. But anyways I think the hero thing is really just opinion. You think it sucks, thats cool, I think it was an awesome idea. I had never played an rts with heroes in it and I thought it was innovative and worked well. Atleast it wasn't something Age of Mythology or something with god units and ended up sucking. I mean it changed game play a lot and I do agree it made things a lot smaller scale but even still it's not like warcraft before then was like some insane over 50 unit battle field for each side.

[Calax]

ok you may be right but thats why you get heroes too. Yeah dk lich combo is pretty harsh no matter what race you are, but i mean you put up a tower or two and unless you've let them creep the entire game they shouldn't be much of a problem. But anyways I think the hero thing is really just opinion. You think it sucks, thats cool, I think it was an awesome idea. I had never played an rts with heroes in it and I thought it was innovative and worked well. Atleast it wasn't something Age of Mythology or something with god units and ended up sucking. I mean it changed game play a lot and I do agree it made things a lot smaller scale but even still it's not like warcraft before then was like some insane over 50 unit battle field for each side.

You didn't play starcraft? that had heroes and pulled it off PERFECTLY!

[Lyric Suite]

I played Warcraft 3 so much before I relaised I actually don't like it. I really like Azeroth and all the characters, but the game is just so lacklustre compared to Starcraft.

 

Most RTS are rather lackluster compared to Starcraft, but i don't see people holding other games to that standard. Bias?

[Musopticon?]

It was their previous game, of course I hold them to their own standards.

 

I don't particularly like Starcraft or other Blizzard rts(I instead prefer Diablos to them),