Warcraft III

[The Veteran]

Ok, I've had enough... I was going to finish tghis game before I started ragging on it but I just can't do it! It's just awful! Everything about it is plain bad and I seem to be the only person that thinks so! I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 40 odd missions and I've used cheats to get through 3 of the last ones I've done just because the game is so repetitive and soul-destroying. Here's a breakdown of why this title is scoring so few points with me but be warned, I'm not prepared to praise a single aspect of this game...

 

I think I have to start with a bit of stroll down memory lane back to when this was a good franchise. Numbers 1 and 2 were both pretty similar titles and they were both pretty good. The winning forumla was in place right from the beginning, but then an RTS has always been an RTS so the 4X format was in place right from the get-go. Resource gathering was simple and remained so through the entire franchise, wood and gold forming the major staples of expansion.

https://www.polycat.net/gallery/albums/warcraft1/warcraft_02.jpg

 

Warcraft 2 was a graphical overhaul but not much changed which in this case was a very good thing. This is by far my favourite title of the series and it provides a good-looking game with some fantastic sprites and the most memorable audio, both sound and music, that I have ever enjoyed.

https://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/5/199255/war2bne_screen006.jpg

 

Warcraft 3 has retained the same simple formula but the game is simply not a patch on it's predecessors. They've added two new races, the undead and the dark elves, and neither one provides an enjoyable or even balanced experience. There is no real background or personality provided for either of the new races and their units are just as unimaginative as the reinventions of those belonging to the Orc and Human factions. Even the humorous one-liners gained from constantly harassing peasants and peons and the like are fairly lack-lustre with only a mild Monty Python reference bringing any humour to the game whatsoever.

 

It seems that the writers were on strike for much of this title's development as it's not just the unit responses that are lacking but also the paltry excuse for a story as well. The inclusion of four factions is clearly a way to double the content of the game by turning 2 campaigns into 4 but the way in which this has been done is simply appauling. Each campaign must be played in order so as to follow one continuous 'plot' and I use the word loosely. The story behind this game was clearly created to allow such linear campaigns and as a result it's an incredibly disappointing amalgamation of up-down stories in which each race takes its turn in the limelight before being annihilated or overthrown by the following faction. This is an exercise in futility as it forces the player to undo their previous work everytime they take the reigns of a new faction, essential rendering 90% of the single player campaign an utter waste of time...

 

Another major gripe with this game is the awful way it looks. Even on the highest possible settings and the largest supported resolution it feels like playing a comic book. The move from rather attractive and entertaining 2D sprites to ugly, low-poly 3D cartoon characters has been carried out appaulingly and I'd much rather be playing one of the older titles than watching this attrocity unfold in front of me.

https://heavey.dk/Warcraft%203.jpg

 

It's not that they look so bad in honestly, simply that they feel like something imagined by a child after hearing some fairytales before bedtime. The only vaguely interesting units in this game are the demons we see in the cutscenes and some of the roaming monsters like Gnolls and the like. The buildings are no better and even the gameplay attached to some of them is awful. For example, the two new factions actually have to build on goldmines before they can start carrying out gold. Why? It's a gold mine... The fact it's already been dug and has a little cart and pickaxe out the front would suggest to me it's pretty much ready for use...

 

What's put me off the game more than the new races, childish graphics and awful story however is the actual level structure of the game itself. I'm a hardened veteran (pardon the phrase) of dozens of RTS titles like most people here and I'm used to facing overwhelming odds, superior troops and meagre resources. Warcraft 3 however seems to use the same recipe for every single level with 3 enemy encampments to oppose you from the get-go at the very least. This is often coupled with a lack of resources so even reaching the point where a solid defense is established can be quite a challenge.

 

One particular mission I've just finished saw me as the Orcs against 4 enemy camps and a fifth player which constantly spawned troops to attack my base as well. Limited resources limited my base building capabilities which also capped my troop production. Due to these two dfacts I was literally able to build up an attack force just in time for the enemy to attack again at which point both sides are out of troops again but only I'm out of resources... I got bored in the end and used a very pleasant GodMode to finish the mission. Honestly the only good thing about this game so far is how easily one can cheat!

 

I'm out of rant for the day... I'll complete this game before burying it under some more acceptable titles deep in the infamous completed pile but I imagine I'll be using a lot of cheats from this point forward as I have no desire to spend any more time playing this piece of crap.

 

Just because I've given a very one-sided report on this game I feel like I should post this inexplicable exerpt from a review given by gamespot. Personally I think it's compelte nonsense but it seems that I'm the only one so here it is...

...it's as good of an offering in the genre as there's ever been, featuring a superb story, carefully refined gameplay, plenty of depth, the best online multiplayer mode in any real-time strategy game to date, and the excellent production values you'd expect from a Blizzard product.

AAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

[Azrael Strife]

I thought it was pure crap, and boring for the most part, I am not sure why people praise it so much, it seems so forgettable to me. WCII was amazing, agreed, but this is a poor follow up to a great game.

Also, for a relatively modern game, the graphics look very bad, as The Veteran said. I rememeber reinstalling it some few months back, thinking "haven't played this in years, with my current system and bumping graphics to the max, this ought to look good", but boy was it a disappointment. I still prefer how Red Alert 2 or Empire Earth look compared to this, and they were released one year before and not "blizzard quality".

[The Veteran]

Thank you Azrael Strife I'm glad it's not just me. Warcraft 2 was superior in every way and I'm playing Starcraft too which is also a seriously superior title. Has anyone ever played KKND? (Krush Kill N Destroy) It's pretty old now but they did a pretty good job of using 2D sprites taken from 3D models to make a rather attractive post apocalyptic game. Red Alert 2 did the same and much as that wasn't my favourite of the franchise both of the above produced a far superior end result than Warcraft 3.

 

Just because I wanted to include some sort of fact I've ggogled some release dates so here they are.

KKND - 1997

https://melbournehouse.kknd2.com/kkndxtreme/images/screen_shots/kkndxe/kknd_x50.jpg

RA2- 2000

https://www.freewebs.com/ra2yrtips/Shot4.jpg

Warcraft 3 - 2002

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/0/07/Warcraft_3_pelikuvaa2.jpg

 

Hmm... Go figure...

 

Also I've just stumbled across the term 2.5D for the first time which is basically RA2 and KKND while Warcraft 3 is technically 3D. Shouldn't have bothered with the extra .5 IMO...

[Thorondor]

Qualifying it as 'Forgettable' fits the bill well enough, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I find myself thinking also, when pondering the possible significance that a transition to '3D' might actually have, that this is a particularly evident case of how futile it proved to be in the end even in plain visual wow-factor, let alone at adding any worth to the genre.

 

::

 

And if we happened to bring strategy golden oldie Total Annihilation into the frame, with the relevance '3D' actually had gameplay-wise there, then we really needn't say more.

 

 

p.s.: I have the original Red Alert and KKND sitting pretty in a shelf over here though I hardly ever touched the latter (I doubt it would run on Win 7 64-bit now). You might also want to have a look at the lower-profile Dark Colony while you're at it - just watch out for them pesky greys, Veteran...

 

p.p.s: oh - just remebered another one from that period Dark Reign: The Future of War!

[The Veteran]

First off, what's deeplinking? I just had to find another screenshot from WC1 because of deeplinking or some such strangeness but I've never encountered that before...

 

Secondly, yes forgettable does just about sum it up.

 

And thirdly, Total Annihilation was possibly the best game ever of all time ever! It's hard to not mention the fact that this game uses the lowest poly count ever but it is a 1997 release so the fact it went so much further than other games at the time is impressive in itself. Construction used 3D wireframes and rendering and all the units were fully 3D as well though I believe it still used a 2D engine just with much more sprites (Thor please correct me if I'm wrong) Here she is for anyone who spent the 90's living under a mountain.

https://storeimages.impulsedriven.com/product_gfx/totalannihilation_ss2.jpg

 

That's a pretty pants image but it does show off the games major flaw (with the application of hindsight) which is the flatness of the terrain. All the maps looked and behaved in a very 3D manner but as a quick look at any in-game shot will show, it really isn't. It's just a big flat area and they could've done with a bit more perspective IMO... Well not that I want to plug an improved version of one of my all time favourite games to those who demand modern software advancements for their gaming pleasure here is TA Spring! It uses the old game and units and slaps them into a fully 3D game engine! Thankyou brainiacs!!!

https://images.betanews.com/screenshots/1133659411-1.jpg

 

Thinking of more games I've played along the 2-2.5-3D roadmap, ever heard of Settlersesque title Alien Nations? It's a pretty fun game that I've never managed to complete due to a bug I couldn't fix but it's got it's own dose of 2.5D graphics. Everything is created in full 3D and then sprited for a good balance of very attractive and detailed graphics. It's a very fun looking game too with the insectoids building maggot farms and the amazons making chocolate cakes! This is a fairly low res screenie but it has a good zoom which allows a great balance between viewable game area and graphics quality. Worth a shot if you want something a bit more tricky than generic RTS titles

https://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DD-ALIENN/20462_an_1_medium.jpg

[Thorondor]

All the maps looked and behaved in a very 3D manner but as a quick look at any in-game shot will show, it really isn't.

Yeah, the terrain is 2D but height values were used for computations making units behave according to those values as if in a 3D surface, and line/arc of fire was also affected by this.

 

One might also mention actual physics were implemented, with shells being subejct to gravity, etc.

 

::

 

Assorted trivia: Units that achieve five kills receive "veteran" status which increases health and damage, as well as giving the unit the ability to lead moving targets. This effect grows with every five subsequent kills.

 

[Sunflash]

I'd comment on this, but the only two games listed so far that I actualy ejoyed was Warcraft II and TA. Can't stand Starcraft or the C&C series.

[The Veteran]

That doesn't matter Sunflash, tell us why you don't like them. After all I didn't start the thread to praise Warcraft 3 did I so why should we only discuss the ones we like? Bad games are just as important to remember as good ones after all

[FireWarrior]

Must admit I sorta glanced over most of this so far, seemed like more WC3-bashing than anything else, but hey

 

For me personally, I am almost the opposite. Granted, WC3 was where the story slowly started a downwards curve, but I still thought it was immensely enjoyable, it's one of the few games I still pick up again every once in a while. One of the big points for me was the art style (something that I have cooled a bit off on over the years), a fresh take on the somewhat dreary/realistic art style in most games at the time. They failed on the 3D, that's true, but the gameplay works, since it stuck with the classic formular instead of trying some now radical idea that fell flat on it's ass.

 

Wether or not you like the story, characters and design of each race is a very individual thing. For me though, I enjoyed the characters more than anything. Not all of them made all that much sense, but they were reasonably well-crafted and, crucially, didn't veer off on unnecessary tangents or suddenly changed their outlook on life just by meeting some other random character. Arthas remained an ass, Luther remained the wise, old, idiotic teacher and the Prophet remained an arrogant, pompous moron throughout.

[The Veteran]

Hey FW, thanks for the positive response, it's good to have a contrast to my WC3 bashing as you so rightly called it Of course I couldn't disagree more with most of what you said but you may be surprised to find I agree with bits of it too

 

Having just completed the game (I cheated almost exclusively to get through the Night Elf campaign due to sheer boredom and the repetitiveness of the missions) I couldn't be more disappointed. For me not just the story but the entire game was a downward spiral right from the get go. The first few missions were quite fun as I felt like I was playing a new Warcraft game (which of course I was) but the realisation soon dawned on me that I was playing a particularly bad new Warcraft game...

 

You mentioned you enjoyed the art style for the exact reasons I dislike it (lack of gritty realism) so obviously there is a market for happy go lucky graphics and they didn't fail on that front quite as spectacularly as I'd like to think. Have a flick back to the post where I've posted the chronology of 3 similar titles over the years though and you'll see it's an embarrassing showcase by Blizzard compared to other games released years earlier!

 

I agree that the gameplay DOES work as you're quite right that they've kept the winning formula. I think it's really the missions that let the game down though as there's no sense of balance and an unavoidable sense of endless repetition.

 

Regarding the characters I have to disagree again I'm afraid! Arthas started off as the people's champion (Uther praises him early in the game as does his father) but very quickly becomes a tool of pure evil, disobeying orders, sacrificing his friends and killing the king. I never cared for him and always felt that the story was forcing me to do things I really didn't want to. That's a surefire way to suck any enjoyment out of the game and it continued for the other 3 campaigns too. Arthas as a necromancer is no better than he was as a human and the player continues to carry out incredibly despicable missions while they eradicate their own people over the course of another 8 uninspiring missions.

 

Orcs were more fun than the otehr races as they're more unique and at least Thrall had a personality unlike the others. He was a leader doing the best for his people and it showed right to the campaign's end. His buddy Grom however was a despicable little wretch tainted by bloodlust and chaos however and we still have to suffer several missions controlling him rather than the honourable leader Thrall.

 

To be honest I didn't care about playing the game anymore by the time I reached the Night Elf campaign so I can't comment on the characters but there did seem to be more history in the final campaign than anywhere else in the game. There was even a little hierarchy going on with the druids and whatever the other units were, I don't even remember I was so sick of the game by this point...

 

Anyway, I'm finished now and I swear I'll never be picking up this game again so long as I live (to play that is, it's quite likely I'll move it at some point between now and shuffling off the mortal coil) I'm actually very tempted to get rid of this gaem completely as I didn't enjoy a single moment of it so why bother keeping it? If anyone wants it let me know, might make a good doorstop or something

[Bomb Bloke]

Regarding the characters I have to disagree again I'm afraid! Arthas started off as the people's champion (Uther praises him early in the game as does his father) but very quickly becomes a tool of pure evil, disobeying orders, sacrificing his friends and killing the king.

He heads out in that course from right near the very beginning, and never strays from it (as much as you expect it to, the moment where he suddenly goes "whoops I'm evil" never happens). This is the point FireWarrior is getting at.

 

Personally I didn't mind WCIII. WCI I strongly disliked; I thought the interface to be garbage, however, since I'd played WCII first, I'd probably been spoiled. Never finished it, never will.

 

(Having a dozen or so enemy soldiers rampage into your base is no fun when you can only select a few at a time yourself - doesn't help that you need to use the keyboard just to achieve that!)

 

WCII was fun, if strongly repetitive. The AI was a joke, you just build up a force, then go wipe out their defenses with overwhelming numbers. Rinse and repeat for every mission thereafter. Do it TWICE in every map with a large body of water, assuming you don't have access to aerial fighters (and for most of the game, you don't). Decent in a LAN, though, if only because a human player is typically a massive upgrade over the AI.

 

WCIII would be the first to have a plot that goes beyond "orcs come out of gate, they fight humans" (or, in the WCII expansion, "humans come out of gate, they fight orcs").

 

The graphics were good for the time (about 8-9 years ago), though obviously no where near as great as the previous title (they certainly look better then those JPEG-compressed messes you posted, Vet! ). The gameplay was basically StarCraft without the worst of the pathfinding bugs and lower unit counts. The AI was still a bit of a walk-over, but you were at least encouraged to mix up your unit production a bit, rather then just spam the strongest unit available to you all the time.

 

The main complaint I had at the time is that it wasn't StarCraft II. I guess a lot of people would now say they're glad it wasn't...

[Sunflash]

That doesn't matter Sunflash, tell us why you don't like them. After all I didn't start the thread to praise Warcraft 3 did I so why should we only discuss the ones we like? Bad games are just as important to remember as good ones after all

 

 

The gist of the matter is I'm a turtle-player. I like defensive buildings/structures/etc, where I can just hunker down and hold my ground while I'm building up the cool stuff in the background.

 

 

This does not work in C&C. You'll just get bum-rushed faster than you can rebuild, or be forced to spend so much time manuvering units(patrol settings or not) that you can't do anything ELSE except scream as you're swarmed over by an army of end-game units that squash you flatter than a pancake.

 

 

And don't get me started on that crapfest of SC. I know I'm not near as fast a clicker as some people, but celestia be damned I can NEVER keep up with just the AI. Not only is it just a chess match(counter this with that and nothing else!), it's a chess match at the speed of light with no leeway at all.

 

 

/soapbox

[The Veteran]

Haha I know what you mean Sunflash, my revisit to SC after so many years has reminded me just how fast-paced it is! I'm a bit of a turtle player myself as well but I've always found it works pretty well in most of the C&C titles as long as you know how to defend. You have to build a few different types to take care of land and air attacks, create bottlenecks as much as possible and defend from as few points as you can. Back up fixed defences with some cheap and quickly replaced troops like rockets or their equivalent and be sure you have some artillery or mobile attack units on hand to deal with any long range attackers that are sitting too far off to engage.

 

I found Turtling much harder in Warcraft 3 than I ever did in any other RTS as there's only one basic kind of defence which can't be upgraded and is very weak for what it is. As you said regarding C&C I repeatedly found myself getting hit by 3 attacking armies at once, just as I was ready to counter... This annihilated my attack force which I would then have rebuilt just in time for another wave of attacks. The only way to survive most of the levels is to strike hard and fast at each base in turn and knock out their troop production capability but bear in mind it's a suicide mission every time as you won't escape and will only achieve destruction of one building if you're lucky...

 

BB I disagree, I don't think Arthas starts off as a 'bad' guy, he's just very arrogant... While he always has the makings of a slightly deranged chap he does start the game with a great accord with Uther who is pure good and if he likes Arthas then clearly he's ok at this point. He very quickly starts making decisions that appal Uther like slaughtering his own citizens and eventually sacrificing his friends life for a cursed weapon of evil just to accomplish his own goals. That is NOT normal character progression and we're never given any reason as to why his loyalty to the kingdom unravels so quickly. It's not fair to say he starts off that way or he has no loyalty as he clearly does at the start. The man we see in the first cinematic is not in the market for patricide...

 

Warcraft 1 WAS very basic but it was always going to be wasn't it? You're right it's probably down to having played no.2 first which is a vast improvement but again that's to be expected. Personally I don't see the same level of improvement between 2 and 3 as there was between 1 and 2 though.

 

The fact that you can only select a handful of units is absolutely awful, as you mentioned. I hate games that suffer this and for some inexplicable reason ALL 3 Warcraft's do it! Starcraft suffers it as well for a similarly baffling reason. It makes it impossible to create the force you'd like unless you use several groups and that generally isn't possible. Especially in games with food limits, seriously? Warcraft 3 gives us buildings that increase our maximum population by 10 apiece but there's a maximum of only 90 'food'? That's nothing! What were they thinking? At east it explains why you can only select 12 units at a time if you can only build about 20 at any one point in the first place...

 

I don't remember the specific missions of WC 2 but I'm sure you're right that it's repetitive (I struggle to name many RTSs of the time that aren't) I think the difference between playing 2 and 3 for me is that I enjoyed watching 2 while 3 just makes me want to shove pointy things in my eyes until I can only hear how awful it is. Warcraft 2 was fun, Warcraft 3 for me, was not even close to being fun...

 

I agree the gameplay is mostly Starcraft but then RTS gameplay hasn't changed too much over the years anyway (and when it has it generally hasn't worked!) but I can't disagree more on the graphics. It's probably one of my single largest gripes with the game. As for looking better then the JPEG-compressed messes I posted I really don't see it... WC3 gives about 25% of the visible game area as any of the games I posted and it just looks like it was made with a box of crayons. Everything is purple and blue and red and I just can't bear to look at it. I'd rate the fantasy sprites of HoMM3 as better quality than these awful excuses for 3D models. To add another game to my list of 'I'd rather be looking at these old graphics' games, anyone ever played Wargames?

https://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/3/46083/wargames_screen001.jpg

 

It doesn't help that that's a poor quality image of a zoomed in view but essentially that's what it looks like anyway. It's by no mean s'good' but the buildings and vehicles are all full 3D while the infantry are sprites. It works just fine (while seriously lacking any kind of effort from the texture department!) and this is another game that was released 4 years prior to WC3. Seriously, they could've tries SO much harder...

[Bomb Bloke]

BB I disagree, I don't think Arthas starts off as a 'bad' guy, he's just very arrogant...

He doesn't start off bad, but he starts off on the "path", so to speak. Doesn't really do anything "evil" until he hits the frozen wastelands, but you can see it coming long before then - and even after that, it's not until he reaches Frostmourne that he actually goes full-blown "dark side" and loses his sanity.

 

Frankly I consider StarCraft to be better then any WarCraft title, so don't get me wrong, I'm not saying WCIII makes my top 10 or anything like that. That list is filled up with practically everything Origin/Bullfrog churned out, that plus a certain alien-shooting series...

 

Oh, and probably Final Fantasy Tactics. I've been collecting "clones" of that game for ages now, too bad I'll probably never have time to play them all...

 

One thing I've noticed with the average RTS over time is that, the more advanced they get, the less freedom you get.

 

In WCI/II, every level is the same (build up, kill other team). WCIII adds more complex goals (though nothing that wasn't in StarCraft), but as a result, you can't always "build up" and play missions your own way.

 

This is true for many other series. Settlers, Dungeon Keeper, and so on. For example, in Keeper I, you could often build yourself a nice big dungeon, make a task-force to your liking, then wipe out all opposition in the map. You can seldom do that in Keeper II; you're usually crammed into a small hole somewhere with barely room to make a decent lair. The sequel is far more varied in what it asks you to do, but you lose a lot of freedom as a result - but both games are great fun, because DKII does the missions very well, and messing about doing your own thing in DKI never seems to get boring.