Warcraft III

[Fellfrosch]

Have they already announced an expansion? Or are we just assuming they'll do one because they always do one?

[GuJiaXian]

Buy the expansion?  Probably not.  The plot was typical, and while WC3 is NOT a bad game, nor even just a mediocre one, it just didn't really catch my attention (yes, despite the fact that I played through the whole game).  An expansion seems like it would just end up re-hashing the same thing over and over.

Diablo II was radically different than Diablo.  I was working at a Software Etc. when Diablo II came out, and so got an excellent view of how the public recieved it.  It was recieved VERY badly, initially (despite incredible sales figures).  The fact that you couldn't save and the unfamiliar gameplay caught many people unawares.  They wanted Diablo verbatim with a graphic facelift.  That's all Warcraft III is: Warcraft II with a facelift.  There's no new innovation.

World of Warcraft?  I'd be lying if I said that it didn't intrigue me--I'd love to play an ogre mage and cast Bloodlust on myself to make that funny growling noise.  I've thought all along that WC3 was nothing but an "event" to prep people for playing WoW.  Look at it this way: the world introduced in WC1 and WC2 had two races: very boring for a MMORPG (Everquest has 8 or so races).  WC3 got everyone pumped with the Warcraft world and concept (after about a 6 year hiatus).  It also introduced two new "races": the Undead and the Night Elves.  can you see how Blizzard is using WC3 as a medium to make WoW work?

In addition to all this, I have a bone to pick with MMORPGs.  Why should I pay $50 to get a game and then an additional $10 or so every month for the "privilege" of continuing to play the game?  I'm not big on online gaming at all.  In fact, i was one of the beta testers for Warcraft 3.  The beta was online only, and I was sick and tired of lag and pimply 12-year-olds grunt rushing me.

[GuJiaXian]

Fellfroch: an expansion is assumed with Blizzard titles.  The plot also leaves huge threads open for an expansion.

[Prometheus]

Yes, although in official Blizzard statements they haven't decided to do an expansion yet...it's hard to believe them. The plot has huge question marks left at the end, and World of Warcraft's plot is supposed to start four years after Warcraft III if memory serves.

As far as World of Warcraft fees are concerned, it is annoying to be required to pay so much, particularly after the 'client-for-free' experience I had with Shattered Galaxy. I am actually glad in a way, however, that they are going to be charging for continued use of World of Warcraft. The fee isn't going to be for the privilege to play the game. If it was about that, we'd have to pay for current battle.net games as well. The fees are there to support the development team primarily. The game is intended to continually evolve, have Gamemaster-run events, and to generally be better-run than anything currently out there. Also, the fees will go toward preventing those same 12-year olds you mentioned from hacking the game. It's a lot easier to get caught when your credit card number is involved and there are staff out there watching for hacks. Consider Diablo II, a game that despite Blizzard's efforts, has been utterly ruined by hackers and dupers. I'd love to see a Blizzard game that lacks that corrupting element. As far as whether World of Warcraft will be worth the price, I'll have to decide that as I go along.

I'm also wondering what you expected in the way of innovation from Warcraft III. I saw plenty of innovation in the game, though perhaps not in areas you were looking for them. One of the things that helped me realize this is playing other recently released RTS games. If you want to experience 'nothing new' there are some out there for you.

[GuJiaXian]

Oh, I know what the $10 goes toward.  Still, I played a month or two of Everquest and hated the surcharge.  Then again, I hated Everquest, too...at Software Etc. we called it Evercrack, because every time a new expansion came out, all the junkies were in dishing out money to get their next hit.

As for innovation, I expected something new in the gameplay.  Other than a graphical facelift and the heroes (and their "rpg"-ish qualities), I just didn't see enough to really catch my eye.  Oh, well.

And yes, I am *much* more into rpgs than rts titles.

[Prometheus]

I hope that World of Warcraft won't be very comprable to Everquest or even newer games like Dark Ages of Camelot. Blizzard has big claims out to revolutionize the dumbest parts of MMORPG gaming, (like that hideous leveling snore game) and they better come through on those. Should they do so, a moderate fee won't sound so bad I expect.

[GuJiaXian]

I still probably won't get it.  I've never been big on online role-playing.  Or online games much at all, for that matter.

[Fellfrosch]

I'm actually quite pleased with online games, and the price doesn't bug me (provided I can get the initial software for free, which is how a lot of companies are doing it these days). If it weren't for my addiction to Clix games, I'd be shelling out 15 bucks to renew my Shattered Galaxy account when it expires on Thursday.

I agree with Prometheus, though: Blizzard had better make the lower levels of its MMORPG way more interesting than other companies have done.

[GuJiaXian]

I dunno, Fellfrosch...I really enjoyed killing 6 THOUSAND skeletons to level up to second level in Everquest.  What about picking up all of those spider eyelashes and bat guano bits to sell for 1/25 gp?  I mean, you can't beat tried-and-true gameplay like that.

[Fellfrosch]

Spider eyelashes would be cool. I spent my time in Dark Age of Camelot picking up skeleton knuckles and scraps of ragged hide.

[GuJiaXian]

And sold them for a paltry 1/25th gp, I'll bet.  Low levels in MMORPGs are just dumb. I spent most of my time in Ultima Online slaughtering sheep and carding their wool to sell.  Yay.  *yawn*

[Prometheus]

Actually if I remember right, it was a lot less than 1/25 of a gold piece. DAOC was really tight with money when we played. You didn't loot corpses to get rich...you did it just to keep up with minimal needs. You could get ahead of the game, but only by a little bit without huge amounts of effort.

[GuJiaXian]

Yuck, see, I don't enjoy that at all.  Real jobs are hard enough, with scraping together cash to pay for bills.  I don't need to emulate it in my entertainment!  That's why I stopped playing the Sims: why should I spend my free time teaching a computer sprite to use the toilet (and not the kitchen floor) when I have to urinate in real life?  Yay, fun.  "Cool!  My dude in the Sims finally used the microwave without starting a fire!"

[Entsuropi]

grrr. so here i am, in the process of upgrading my neolithic PC, and i find £25 left over. ho! thinks i. thats enough to get myself a computer game from amazon. so, after much umming and ahhing i go for GTA III, despite the immense temptation of morrowind. then i see promethiuses review. doh! the sequel to the game that got me into RTS's, and that cemented my computer addiction (it could have gone either way before the orcs marched onto my screen). the fun me and my friends had, playing short skirmish games against the computer while giving each other dodgy tactical advice. i remember that i was so horrendiusly bad at RTS's that i just level skipped through the levels in order to see the end FMV. mind you thats what i did 4 months ago with starcraft.
questions for you promethius :
1) what are the animations like? how do the graphics look when moving? the piccies i have seen failed to really grab my attention, but near everything looks better in motion.
2) how good are the skirmish modes? that was a major complaint of mine about starcraft.
3) what is lag like? im on a 56k aol conection here, so im not holding up much hope, but is it playable at all?
4) what is the build tree and research like? aol style (millions of stuff that take years to research) or red alert style (build for 20 mins and you have everything you need).
5) how detailed is the hero leveling like? and do your heros get transported from one level to the next in campaign mode?
cheers

[GuJiaXian]

Okay, having posted a fair amount concerning this game, I have to disagree with the review posted on the TWG site.  The game is NOTHING NEW.  New graphics, yes, but the gameplay is the same as all the older Warcraft titles.

Heroes do keep their levels from level to level, but all heores become inconsequential once the current campaign is done.  For example: once the Human campaign is over, Arthus (the paladin dude) ceases to exist.  He becomes a deathknight or something in the Undead campaign, but he starts at level 1 again (even if he was a level 10 paladin).  Blah.

As for the graphics themselves, the cut scenes are incredible.  Despite anything else bad I say about the game, I loved the cutscenes.  Blizzard always does a great job with those.  The in-game graphics are nothing special...a bit dated and angular.  They work for the scope of this game, but they're nothing special.

Like I've said a million times, the tech tree/unit advancement is nothing new.  Build a lumber mill to be able to upgrade your town hall to build the next building...blah.  By your little ranking system, it's Red Alert style (20 minutes or less and you've got everything).

I was VERY disappointed by the final level.  You have to hold off this "huge" invasion force for 45 minutes (real time).  I had destroyed the enemy base within the first 15 minutes, and then literally had to sit and idle for 30 minutes before I could beat the game and see the final cutscene.

Nothing special.  Bad game?  No.  Great game?  No.