WARCRAFTTTT (nerd rage)

[CitizenOfUlysses]

.

[chris709scott]

Yea all three of the RTS games became amazing and genre defining, I mean they even did it with the MMO genre. It really captured and redefined the genre that was already somewhat well established.

I've played all 3 RTS games and WoW since it's release day(not take it a few breaks here and there)

Blizzard never ceases to amaze me with their game developing.

[matt]

warcraft ii and iii rules.
i will never ever play world of warcraft.

I felt the same way until I tried WoW. it's amazing.

the rts games are pretty bland imo. especially 3. it felt very dated. there were no huge improvements over even the first one that i recall.

all three are extremely influential and important games. the first one was one of (if not the first) RTS game with LAN-support. the second one was the first with Internet multi-player. the third one was (and probably still is) the best game in the genre, sporting four distinctly different races - among other things.

furthermore, your claim of WCIII not being different from WC (i.e. Orcs & Humans) is surprising - to put it nicely. I think you need to revisit '90s RTS - as well as WCIII.

obviously it is different but not in any significant way that i remember other than graphics... and those have not changed much for the better. i have not played the first one since 1994 when it came out but there were no really unique changes as far as gameplay that spring to mind in wc3. it was really just more of the same. command and conquer came out a bit after wc but i find it to be much deeper and enjoyable. generals is a personal fav as far as rts goes. i absolutely will not be playing wc3 ever again. the story is so bad.

[DAP]

LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNKIIIINS

Certainly one of the most influential and important memes of the modern era.

[nixon]

Kicked my Wow addiction a year ago. Doin' good.

[Arkaic]

I'll be down Matt I'm in echo isles server. Thing is I don't play now either and trying to keep it that way but if it's with cool peeps I'll get into it again.

[alexander]

obviously it is different but not in any significant way that i remember other than graphics... and those have not changed much for the better. i have not played the first one since 1994 when it came out but there were no really unique changes as far as gameplay that spring to mind in wc3. it was really just more of the same. command and conquer came out a bit after wc but i find it to be much deeper and enjoyable. generals is a personal fav as far as rts goes. i absolutely will not be playing wc3 ever again. the story is so bad.

WC was extremely influential in game design, story writing and gameplay. it set the standard for future games, and had a quality that many future games would fail to match. it does serve more as an extension rather than as a revolution, of the even more important Dune II. the tone and setting, however, were extremely influential.

WCII emphasized story, characters and personality in a way RTS games have never ever done before. it also introduced online gameplay (albeit not by the developers themselves). it also introduced a fairly competent map editor, as well as many third party map editors that were insanely powerful and very satisfying and fun to play with. it also allowed the sharing of campaigns and maps to be played on LANs and over the Internet. it also features far better game mechanics when it comes to resources, further enhancing the importance of resource management and strategy. the "fog of war" element was also introduced, and altered strategy even further. other things worth praising are the great graphics and voice acting, the latter adding a humorous tone. there are three different map terrains, and lots of different elements that provide endless possibilities for maps. it has land, sea and air combat - yielding in strategic approaches galore. it's also one of the most fun games I have ever played. it's just *fun*. (Beyond the Dark Portal also introduced hero units and swamp terrain.) oh - and the cut scenes are astonishingly well made! sooo goodddd.

WCIII has four completely different races, and introduces the notion that maybe RTS games needn't be completely and utterly balanced in every aspect. instead the races are unique, all sporting a special feel and requiring different approaches to strategy and tactics. the game also have new elements like creeps, day/night cycles, 3D terrain, and more. the game features experience points based heroes, which (especially in the single player campaigns) are absolutely critical to attempt to utilize optimally. the "seamless quest" system works brilliantly, making the game immensely grabbing - especially considering the pristine quality of the campaign stories, characters, settings and moods. there is absolutely nothing negative to say about the cut scenes either. there are also new types of quest, e.g. "survival mode" type quests and "scout the area". with this game, Blizzard included the probably best and most advanced world editor any RTS game has ever seen, providing the users with the possibility to create just about anything - thus resulting in the great amount as well as diversity of multiplayer campaigns and maps.


tl;dr version: I disagree. though I don't mind you not liking the games (it's just a matter of preference), I don't think it's entirely fair of you to compromise their influence as well as inherent quality. and to say that there is no difference between the first and the third simply blows my mind.



p.s.
when it comes to C&C, I prefer Red Alert: Counter-Strike.

[Jakey LIAF]

really guys? fucking really?

[matt]

I'll be down Matt I'm in echo isles server. Thing is I don't play now either and trying to keep it that way but if it's with cool peeps I'll get into it again.

alrighty.

if there are enough people, itd be nice to reroll new characters to all be on the same server. i doubt anyone wants to pay $25 to move one of theirs. i know i dont.

i mainly play low level bgs so at the very least, we could make level 19s to play with on a single server since there is not that much of a time commitment.

as far as playing, it does not need to be all consuming but its cheap entertainment. especially when youre poor. you can pay pretty much the price of seeing one movie for a whole month of entertainment.

[matt]

obviously it is different but not in any significant way that i remember other than graphics... and those have not changed much for the better. i have not played the first one since 1994 when it came out but there were no really unique changes as far as gameplay that spring to mind in wc3. it was really just more of the same. command and conquer came out a bit after wc but i find it to be much deeper and enjoyable. generals is a personal fav as far as rts goes. i absolutely will not be playing wc3 ever again. the story is so bad.

WC was extremely influential in game design, story writing and gameplay. it set the standard for future games, and had a quality that many future games would fail to match. it does serve more as an extension rather than as a revolution, of the even more important Dune II. the tone and setting, however, were extremely influential.

WCII emphasized story, characters and personality in a way RTS games have never ever done before. it also introduced online gameplay (albeit not by the developers themselves). it also introduced a fairly competent map editor, as well as many third party map editors that were insanely powerful and very satisfying and fun to play with. it also allowed the sharing of campaigns and maps to be played on LANs and over the Internet. it also features far better game mechanics when it comes to resources, further enhancing the importance of resource management and strategy. the "fog of war" element was also introduced, and altered strategy even further. other things worth praising are the great graphics and voice acting, the latter adding a humorous tone. there are three different map terrains, and lots of different elements that provide endless possibilities for maps. it has land, sea and air combat - yielding in strategic approaches galore. it's also one of the most fun games I have ever played. it's just *fun*. (Beyond the Dark Portal also introduced hero units and swamp terrain.) oh - and the cut scenes are astonishingly well made! sooo goodddd.

WCIII has four completely different races, and introduces the notion that maybe RTS games needn't be completely and utterly balanced in every aspect. instead the races are unique, all sporting a special feel and requiring different approaches to strategy and tactics. the game also have new elements like creeps, day/night cycles, 3D terrain, and more. the game features experience points based heroes, which (especially in the single player campaigns) are absolutely critical to attempt to utilize optimally. the "seamless quest" system works brilliantly, making the game immensely grabbing - especially considering the pristine quality of the campaign stories, characters, settings and moods. there is absolutely nothing negative to say about the cut scenes either. there are also new types of quest, e.g. "survival mode" type quests and "scout the area". with this game, Blizzard included the probably best and most advanced world editor any RTS game has ever seen, providing the users with the possibility to create just about anything - thus resulting in the great amount as well as diversity of multiplayer campaigns and maps.


tl;dr version: I disagree. though I don't mind you not liking the games (it's just a matter of preference), I don't think it's entirely fair of you to compromise their influence as well as inherent quality. and to say that there is no difference between the first and the third simply blows my mind.



p.s.
when it comes to C&C, I prefer Red Alert: Counter-Strike.

nice cut and paste from the wikipedia =p

i never said the game was not influential. having lan and map editors etc is not gameplay though. i enjoyed the first one when it came out, i wont lie about that but that was back when it came out. the game did not hold up well imo. and thats absolutely imo. there are tons of people who like these games. you are right about the hero characters in 3. that is somewhat different but i did not enjoy that.

as far as the story, its so bad. they completely ripped from warhammer which has an interesting setting and just shit on it.