
home | comic | cheats | videos | screenshots | files | reviews | previews | features | releases | forums | links | wap

![]() | 9.4 out of 655 votes |
![]() | "A Worthy Sacrifice" Jul. 09, 2008 |
![]() 9.5 Classic Brilliant and versatile single-player campaign with a thrilling and involving epic plot, extreme replay value thanks to the even better custom game and multiplayer modes, graphics, sounds, gameplay balance and atmosphere; Well, the box could have been half an inch longer to better fit on my shelf. RATINGS GUIDE |
![]() | |
![]() | "It's Official!" 06/30/2008 Jojic/Grabovic 32237 views |
![]() | "A Worthy Sacrifice" 07/09/2008 Jojic/Grabovic 23693 views |
![]() | "Finding New Religion" 06/23/2008 Jojic/Grabovic 20392 views |
![]() | "Microsoft Miis" 06/16/2008 Jojic/Grabovic 12659 views |
![]() | WoW Comic: "Cheat Death" 05/30/2008 Jojic/Grabovic 10147 views |
![]() | |
![]() | This month's 9.3 07/09/2008 33212 views |
![]() | This month's 8.9 07/10/2008 24802 views |
![]() | This month's 8.6 07/11/2008 20728 views |
![]() | This month's 9.3 07/12/2008 14988 views |
![]() | Last week's 8.2 07/14/2008 11522 views |
![]() | |
![]() | Wolfenstein E3 2008 Trailer ![]() 0:24 |
![]() | Fallout 3 E3 2008 Trailer ![]() 3:13 |
![]() | Tomb Raider Underworld E3 2008 Trailer ![]() 2:49 |
![]() | Street Fighter 4 E3 2008 Trailer ![]() 4:33 |
![]() | Singularity E3 2008 Trailer ![]() 0:59 |

| GAME INFO publisher: Blizzard Entertainment developer: Blizzard Entertainment genre: Strategy MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PII 400, 128MB RAM, 8MB Video Card, 700MB HD |
ESRB rating: T homepage: www.blizzard.com/war3 release date: Jul 01, 02 (released) |
| » All About Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos on ActionTrip | |
At first sight, the interface looks a lot like the StarCraft interface with a new skin, simple and comprehensive. The bar at the top of the screen contains four buttons allowing access to the various game menus. The first menu, the quest menu, which is available on campaign and scripted scenarios only, shows current quests and their status. The next menu, the options menu allows access to standard options, such as the save screen and the ability to quit the game or restart the chapter. The allies menu, available in multiplayer mode only, contains the chat control, resource trading. Finally, the log menu contains briefing and dialogue transcripts. On the top bar there is also an icon displaying the time of the day, four numeric icons displaying the quantity of gold, lumber and food you possess and your upkeep status, which I'll come back to later. The bottom part of the interface contains the mini-map on the left hand side of the screen, with all the standard options, such as show/hide terrain, switch to ally/enemy colors and alert allies to a point on the map. On the right is the animated portrait of the currently selected unit. Moving to the right again is a dialog box that shows the unit's stats or icons representing all selected units, if you have selected more than one. You can still select only up to twelve units at a time, and though this may seem strange at first, you will find it more than enough.
![]() I just ate a lemon! |
![]() Landfall... |
The population maximum is far lower in WarCraft III than in StarCraft, 90 in comparison to 200. Units need to use resources in order to function properly, you must spend gold and wood to create them, and will need to keep up food production in order to continue to keep them. All units apart from workers take up two units of supply, which means that you will probably never have more than thirty to forty offensive units at a time. Moving to the right on the interface is a column that show the six inventory slots, however this column is used only by hero units. The command icons are typically located in the right-hand bottom corner of the screen, the only change being that there are now twelve in stead of nine of them. The two major novelties concerning the interface are the hero and worker icons which appear on the left-hand side of the screen. Heroes play an important part in battle, and as their spells and skills can overturn the situation in a matter of seconds, it is important that they are always easily accessible. Therefore, each of the heroes you possess (and you can have maximum three per game) is represented by an icon that appears at the left-hand side top of the screen and easily summoned by clicking it (or pressing F1-F3 keys). As soon as one of your workers becomes idle, he will also get an icon just above the mini-map. This icon can be used to quickly select him and give him an assignment. This useful feature has been seen in other games before (Age of Kings, Empire Earth), but this is its first appearance in the Craft serial.
One other interface improvement that has been introduced concerns managing groups of units. Once you select a group of units, the engine will automatically create sub-groups within that group, based on unit types. You can switch between these sub-groups by pressing Tab or Shift+Tab, or simply clicking a unit from the desired sub-group on the group interface. This will highlight the sub-group, and let you issue unit specific commands to the sub-group. Members of the sub-group will intelligently perform the task at hand one at a time preventing unnecessary loss of mana or resources. This feature seriously improves command efficiency.
I already mentioned that the gameplay focus shifted to fewer, more powerful units and heroes. Heroes are incredibly powerful units, capable of gathering experience-points and gaining levels, carrying and using magical items and modifying the characteristics of surrounding units. Heroes are crucial to any battle, due to their influence, skills and raw power. However, battles are also crucial to heroes, as it can bring them new experience, and in turn new abilities and improvements. Each race has one Warrior hero, one Mystical hero, or spell-caster and one Cunning hero, who has aspects of both.
However handy it may seem to have a large number of units all around the map at all times, you will soon discover that that is less than profitable. The problem here is that once your food consumption goes over forty, you start paying upkeep, in this case Low Upkeep. When your units start consuming more than seventy food units, you will have to pay High Upkeep to maintain them all. Fortunately, you cannot get to spend more than ninety food units at any time. Upkeep is basically the amount of money that is paid for unit maintenance and supply, and it is taken directly from the resources gathered by your workers before they even bring them back. Low upkeep takes away thirty percent of gross production, and high upkeep takes sixty percent. In practice, this means that if you have low upkeep, your worker will take ten gold out of the mine and bring seven home, if you happen to have high upkeep, he will still take ten, and bring only four home! This means that having a lot of units can deplete your gold mine in no time, leaving you with some forty percent of the gold you could have had. This feature makes the game a bit harder, but it effectively neutralizes some of the annoying "entrenching" strategies that used to be popular among some players.
Two of the four player races in Warcraft III are already quite familiar, and gamers who finished at least the Tides of Darkness, should be able to fully grasp both Humans and Orcs in no time. Those races have suffered a few changes, but at least, the resource gathering method and the two or three basic buildings remained the same. The undead and the night elves are new and very different from the older races, even in the basic concepts. They force the player to use a mixture of tactical solutions, (much like those used to create the Protos and the Zerg from StarCraft). Needless to say, each race has its own specific units and tech-trees (build X in order to be able to create Y), with some commonalities. For example, the headquarters buildings all have three stages of development, each of which enables you to build new structures and units, and research new technologies, and so forth.
Whenever you need to replenish your strength or mana, or buy mercenary units or magical items, you will have to visit the neutral structures. Neutral structures can be found both on campaign and multiplayer maps marked as yellow houses on the mini-map. Neutral structures include Life and Mana Pools, Mercenary Camps, Goblin Alchemists' and Goblin Merchants'. All these neutral structures are usually guarded by hostile creeps. Killing these creeps yields experience points for your nearby hero, but it will often grant him a magical artifact. These magical items that can be gathered from creeps' dead bodies or purchased from the Goblin Merchant can have different effect and longevity. Artifacts have different functions, some will permanently change a hero's primary characteristic when used, some will modify a certain stat when carried, and some are simply be carried and used at need.
We come in peace... es...
Now, AI is one point where Blizzard always stood out among the competition. Now when I speak of AI, I only refer to what I experienced in custom games, and not in the campaign, as most of the computer's behavior in the campaigns has been specifically scripted for each and every scenario. Custom games are the next logical step after finishing the campaign. They gradually introduce you to all races, the purpose of which is to provide you with some training before you log onto Battle.net and get some real combat against other players. AI will never be able to replace human intelligence though, so expect getting whooped soundly by better players for some time. Still, Blizzard did a pretty good job on it. There are two basic levels of virtual intelligence involved here. One is on the player level, and it is actually what we call a Computer Player, and the other one is on the unit level and decides what all units do, how they respond to commands, react to new situations, and find their way around the map. The latter is spotless. Path-finding, acquiring targets in battles and unit response in general work like a charm, making gameplay fluent and enjoyable. The player intelligence deals with determining strategies, tech-tree development and unit and resource management and it is almost as good. It will occasionally act like a real live player, trying to lure your units into ambush, mass attacking, and then retreating wounded units and replacing them with fresh ones. The computer only seemed to have had a hard time leading the Night-elves; I had no trouble in defeating the computer controlled Night-elf player whatever race I was playing. Still, bear in mind that the player AI shouldn't even be more than a "sparing" partner used for practice. If you want a real fight, go to the Battle.net... and even if you die, remember that "all the ladies dig rigor mortis"...
I laugh in the face of danger hahahaha!
This finally brings us to the main aspect of this game: the multiplayer mode. Blizzard did everything they could to make this element of WarCraft III as user-friendly as possible. The game engine supports up to twelve players per session on Battle.net or LAN. The excellent and easy to use LAN support will make WarCraft III the worthy successor of StarCraft as the ruling game on LAN parties. Players who prefer to play one-on-one through a direct modem connection will now have to establish a dial-up networking connection between their machines manually before playing the game. Battle.net offers everything we need and know from years of gaming on the net as well as many new and improved options. Several multiplayer modes are built into the logic of the game, they include 1-on-1, 2-on-2, and so forth up to four ladders. There is also quick anonymous match-making, free choice of player color, observation mode and extensive clan support.
Multiplayer games support resource trading and unit sharing for the first time in Craft games. Multiplayer sessions can last quite a long time, they can range anything between half an hour to forty-five minutes for tiny maps to four hours or more for the really large ones. One good novelty here is that there is no more rushing in the classical sense of the word. It is simply impossible to see the defeat screen after six minutes of play, which could easily happen in RTS online games, even without cheating. This is basically thanks to the fact that multiplayer maps now have a number of Creeps all over them. Creeps are, as I said, aggressive Critters which serve two purposes: slowing down the first attack, and hence destroying all chances for a rush, and acquiring easy experience points for your hero.
The players will at first have to battle it out on the forty-two multiplayer maps for two to twelve players included on the disk, and two scripted maps (for one and four players) displaying the power and modularity of the game engine and editor. And as if that wasn't enough, the game ships with a powerful, yet comprehensive and easy to use map editor, which will result in a plethora of user-made maps. There are rumors that Blizzard may introduce the Map-of-the-Week/Month program as it did for StarCraft. For additional information on gameplay strategies visit Marn Thunderhorn's Strategy Guide at http://www.battle.net/war3.
I never say "Ni"!
There you have it. This game is one in a zillion... a work of art. And whatever slight flaws it still may (theoretically) have, they will be, no doubt, corrected in the patches... and I have this feeling we will be seeing many of them. And not because the game is buggy or anything, but because of the good old Blizzard strategy to increase the replay value of its games by making them evolve. By issuing patches, Blizzard will be able to shift the unit and building price/power balance, and hence inducing the players to develop new strategies. You may as well be a FPS only gamer and still get loopy about it (as our EIC did), and if you are a FRP or RTS player you are sure to adore it. So, scrap up whatever you've got and get yourself a copy. Die-hard fans will probably enjoy getting one of the limited-number collector's edition boxes, which will include a book with high-quality prints of original concept-art, a DVD with all in-game cinematics, game trailers, the "making of" footage, an audio CD with game soundtrack, and of course, the game CD. I myself would be prepared to kill a reasonably large number of people to get my hands on it, so if you do happen to own the collectors edition, do pop by with it... alone... and unarmed...
Ni!
| hiryu | [mail] Jul 02 2002, 02:04 pm EDT | |
| Man, another game to blow my money on.....And I haven't finished NWN yet...So many games, so little time | ||
| Mitza | [mail] Jul 02 2002, 03:39 pm EDT | |
| from a single-player point of view, warcraft III brings nothing new to this world... it is a very, very enjoyable game to play but if you spend more than 5 days playing it you will slowly start to find it a little bit boring.
low upkeep, high upkeep? this should probably make me manage my army a little better. but the only tactics that work is the ones where you go and have the maximum ammount of units, attack the enemy, retreat with the wounded hero and then do it again... not too bright, i must say. there are just a few units that are really usefull to you (in any race) and, per se, a lot of units that you might never use. graphics: well, it's bloody nice (although your foot soldiers rund like they are at a gay parade) but the purpose of the 3D engine still puzzlez me. what good is a nice 3D engine if you cand only move the camera just a bit on the Z axis and when you try to rotate it, guess what! when you stop pressing the button it changes back to your normal view. the only time someone wikll use the rotating camera will be when he will want to see a unit up close. i really don't know why they bothered with a 3D engine (maybe not to be the laughing stock of the industry?) when a 2D engine with a isometric view would have been the same thing (and it would have helped the game to ship earlier). multiplayer: the undead scourge is much to powerfull. try to attack one of their base and you'll get you'r ass kicked not by their unit but by their buildings... bloody hell! and then again, it is a very nice game, with a nice story, easy gameplay and so on... but i really don't think it deserves a score of 95. right... bring on the pain! |
||
Mitza: typo
lots of 'em
sorry, it's late here :) Adamas: Excellent summary Mitza. I've been playing the game now for... ReDeeMeR: Scourge is way to powerfull!!!
Have any of you played agai... kiry: Lol undead are to strong? if you ever played the beta you wo... Mitza: you're right kiry, my mistake WC3Playa: Undead are NOT too strong. If anything they are too weak...... vman: something is messed up with my game. wen i clik on battle.ne... | ||
| T-Minus10 | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 02:13 am EDT | |
| Blizzard is going downhill creativity-wise. They had a steady streek going: Warcraft, Warcraft II, Diablo, Starcraft, each with its own unique style and each being the best game I've ever played to that point.
Diablo II was a complete let-down. Then I got addicted and played it for days on end. War 3? Complete let down. Of course, I'm utterly addicted to it. Fun factor's way above my head, but uniqueness is gone. Basically no innovation. Did I mention I'm addicted? Yeah, and it's not innovative. What is my point, ladies and gentlemen? I'm not quite sure, decide for yourself. |
||
MooFreaky: I agree that War3 isn't as creative as Diablo or SC. But th... | ||
| Carpediem | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 08:59 am EDT | |
| i think u guys expected to much out of it
there are so many games out there its very hard to come up wiht new stuff and if ur totally innovative wot if its a total flop? ur better off doing something which works well initially i found it rather hard because it involves a lot more strategy than the likes of starcraft but once u learn how to play it u like and get addicted i think they did a great job easily 90's |
||
| SixShooter | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 11:34 am EDT | |
| Honestly, people.
I really like this site becuase of opinions like this one. You people are the hardest-to-please gamers I know, and that's a good thing. That being said, I think Ravenrex is so very terribly wrong. The Warcraft name is basically two very evenly matched sides, Human and Orc, being pitted against one another. For every Human unit, there is an Orcish counterpart, with very little diversion between the two races. With this new game, not ONLY are there 2 NEW races to deal with, it adds heroes, upkeep and a swanky 3D engine, which DOES look pretty. What were you expecting? Being able to switch from RTS to an FPS standpoint? RTS games, as a genre, have very little that is new to bring to the table other than going fully 3D to add new effects, animations and camera angles, and adding new strategies for the offered races. But you have to think - This is a sequel game. It MUST reflect the core of the games that have gone before it - WC, WC2 and SC. They were all top-down RTS games, much like this one. If it were radically different, IT WOULDN'T BE WARCRAFT. Instead, the new engine allows you to pick your resolution (not available in previous incarnations), as well as zoom in on your encampment to a tighter angle. Does it offer any tactical advantage? Not really, but it makes battles look really damn cool. And the fact that you being such an advanced RTS gamer finds the game so simplistic is your problem. The game is made easy for those NEW to the genre. If you're looking for a challenge, hit BNET, not the single-player campaign. But as for your argument to mastering every nuance in a few hours, I'm afraid you're wrong. With 4 races to choose from, there are a variety of strategies and counters that have yet to be explored. All 4 races are different from one another in basic strategy, yet alike enough to allow for a new player to find similarites and not be frustrated. You find yourself on the top of the learning curve because you've played all of the Blizzard RTS games that came before, not because the game is poorly made. I really think you're being unfair here. Diablo 2 was a monumentally different game than D1 was. Splitting the classes into 5 (and eventually 7) non-overlapping classes was a great improvment over the first game's version that saw all 3 classes lose their boundaries at the higher levels. So the same follows here - with the original 2 races tweaked to have them less similar, and 2 new races that borrow heavily from StarCraft, Blizzard gives us a LOT that is new to work with. The fact that it doesn't meet your exacting standards is disappointing, but you have to admit - WC3 is very different from WC2 while still maintaining that which made it popular in the first place. |
||
Chacka: I love you man... you just said everything thats bene going ... Leon: Very Well said Sixshooter Chr1s: We're not blizzard haters, its just that the game doesn't re... LeDominus: A lot of sensible things said by six shooter! I must admitt,... | ||
| Mitza | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 03:56 pm EDT | |
| well, i'm stiking with my opinion about the single-player campaign
but, then again, the focus of the game is on multiplayer rather than on the single-player experience... and to give a verdict about the multiplayer part of the game would be much too soon... we'll probably have to wait a few more weeks/months to discover all the posibilities and to finally compare warcraftIII to the undisputed champion: starcraft. six shooter: addmit it, the 3D engine was a lost of time... what good is it to have beautifully rendered units, buildings and animations when you can only see a tiny part of what they can offer... i find it frustrating, really. did you ever used the zoom and pan features? when? in the heat of the battle? i don't really think you would have the time... then? ok, you see a new building/unit and you want to check it up up close... but that's only one time per unit/building/special effects (that's if you have the time to do it). i repeat: a 2D engine with a isometric view and 3D units would have been the same freakin' thing... that beeing said... did you notice that the number of unit you can have as an elf is only limited by the ammount of gold/food (aka. you don't have that 90 resources limit)? why? because you can build as many buildings as you want, and the elf buildings CAN fight. i made a test with a friend this evening. me orc, him elf. i set up a pretty impressive line of defense (only guard towers) and he attacked me with about 40 buildings of his. i won just because the elf buildings are TOO slow and my position was more than favorable (meaning it was a very tight spot)(... and he actually managed not to destroy any of my towers :)). but if you think of it, with a few faster units along with the buildings, some long ranged units and a bit of luck he would have smashed me silly... and that's not right! :) |
||
FinalMjolnir: Ahem, I'm just going to comment on your last part about the ... | ||
| Mitza | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 03:59 pm EDT | |
| oh, and if you want some real tactical challange forget about starcraft, warcraft3 and blizzard... the name "shogun: total war" rings a bell? compared to it, stracraft is just a point_and_click affair. | ||
ME!@65.31.85.193: I think Shogun sucks ass! You cant even see your men its so ... | ||
| SixShooter | [mail] Jul 03 2002, 04:16 pm EDT | |
| The 3D engine was by no means a waste of time. This was Blizzard's first 3D game EVER, so getting their feet wet with a workable engine and showing beautifully rendered units and effects is the first step in creating their future games. SC2 is almost a given at this point, not to mention a new version of Diablo or some other massive undertaking.
No, I didn't use the zoom in or pan features, and I agree they're quite useless, but the fact that the game HAS them speaks highly for it. But the decision was to make a 3D game, and they made it. They created an engine that can control 150 or so semi-high poly units complete with animations that doesn't choke today's midrange system on the Internet. In my book, they succeeded. The number of units is limited because yes, you can build as many defensive structures as you like. Its called turtling. But you run out of resources quickly, and every siege unit can hit every tower from just outside its maximum range. So if your enemy is smart enough to make siege units, your entire defensive strategy is moot. But you hit upon a nice point there - If your friend had made a varied war party, you would have been smacked. That's the point of the unit cap. Rather than making a rush of 200 Zerglings (commonplace in SC games) that was virtually unstoppable due to sheer numbers, upkeep and unit caps prevent that. It forces you to play smarter rather than faster. All of these strategies should be looked at though. Its what the game is about. No, WC3 is not a tactical masterpiece like Shogun is, but one thing it most definetly (and unarguably) is a damn fun game. I liked it, the reviewer liked it, and if you don't then go play Shogun. I'll have a blast on BNET getting my ass kicked left and right. |
||
Mitza: "That's the point of the unit cap. Rather than making a rush... Mitza: oh, yeah... don't get all angry on me now. i like the game, ... Leon: Well.. I disagree on your buildings point.. perhaps it's a b... XForce: Well right now their current massive undertaking is their MM... | ||
| fatBastard(); | [mail] Jul 04 2002, 04:32 pm EDT | |
| Well, while we are at it I might as well throw in my thoughts on the subject.
SixShooter responded to Ravenrex in his usual eloquent and precise way but I would like to add that Ravenrex's claim that WarCraft3 brings nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary to the genre is absolutely true. My response to that issue is this: "So?". Be honest, when have any of you ever BOUGHT a game, played it, and enjoyed SOLELY because said game added something groundbreaking to the industry? Not because the game had a good atmosphere/mood/feel to it, not because the gameplay was good and enjoyable and not because it was based around an excellent story but just because some new technology was implemented and utilized in the game. I challenge you all to name just 1 game that was devoid of any kind of mood, had a non-existant story or was at least incredibly boring, consisted of totally bland gameplay BUT was a game that you still enjoyable due to the singular fact that it had some kind of new groundbreaking/revolutionary feature(s) ... Oh bugger, I really set myself up there. Okay, I challenge you to name 1 game etc. etc. etc. EXCEPT Quake. Hmm, I think I'm starting to see the logic behind Ravenrex's comment (no offense intended :o). As for myself, I can only say that I couldn't care less about revolutionary breakthroughs if the game isn't enjoyable. If there is one thing Blizzard excels at it's to make their games enjoyable. I haven't even got my copy of the game yet (it's not being released in my country until tonight at midnight) but I KNOW that I'm going to enjoy the game and ladies and gentlemen that's the only thing that matters. Regarding the zooming and panning discussion I would have to say that It sounds like Blizzard did the right thing. I didn't take long for the developers to figure out that complete control of the camera in RTS games is a very tricky thing to pull off successfully. The company behind "Empire Earth" also realized that it is so very easy to get disoriented when zooming in and out while twirling the camera around your selected unit/building/whatever that before you know it, you can't tell what's left from right or up from down. The old saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is only true as long as they actually DO fix what IS broken and the unrestricted freeflowing camera of the first couple of 3D RTS games was most certainly broke. As a side note I might add that almost every bloody time I exit a building in "NeverWinter Nights" I have to consult the map and the compass to find out which way I'm facing (at least until I know the area by heart) and that was never a problem with the Infinity engine. Last but not least I find it a tad unfair freely compare every game with a RTS label on it. It would be like comparing the rulesystem in "Fallout" with the rulesystem in "NeverWinter Nights" just because they are both labeled as RPG games yet are build on 2 vastly different rulesystems. Shogun might (I haven't played it) be superior to WarCraft3 regaring massive unit movement strategies but then again that's what Shogun is all about isn't it? To pitch one enormous army CONSITING PURELY OF HUMANS AND BASED SOMEWHAT ON HISTORICALLY ACURATE FACTS against another. WarCraft3 is most certainly not based on any thing even remotely resembling historical facts and if just a few of the spells from WarCraft2 has survived the transistion then I would rejoice at the possibility to face a large, slow moving opposing army in tight formations. Can anybody say "Collateral Damage" :-) If you have reached this point of my little rant I salute your patience and appreciate the time you spend reading it. Cheers! |
||
Leon: Very good points made, indeed! Marc: Starcraft fatBastard();: So Marc, am I to understand that StarCraft had neither mood ... | ||
| Chr1s | [mail] Jul 04 2002, 11:52 pm EDT | |
| The game is good, but I feel that most of you are rating it too high.
I agree with what hawkmoon said. I actually prefer SC to WC3. Storywise, it gets boring AND disappointing at the end. It's like they just want to drag out all 4 races to finish the game. The BEST thing about the game is the CG cutscenes. THAT is something I must really comment about. Now THAT is absolutely mind-blowing. Other than that, I'd give the gave an 85% as well. |
||
FinalMjolnir: Have you played the multiplayer at all? Everyone seems to b... | ||
| shaggy_freak | [mail] Jul 07 2002, 10:16 pm EDT | |
| To all of you ranters and complainers, all I have to ask is this.... What do you really expect from a game?
You all whine and complain about things like it was supposed to give you an orgasm while playing it or something. I've been playing games for countless years now, and IMO I've just about played them all. Now, I haven't gotten WC3 yet, but already think that it will be a great game. Does it bring anything new to the plate on a wide base including every game ever created, probably not. But, after saying that, does it bring anything new to the WC experience, and the answer to that is yes. Did anyone here have heroes in WC2? No, did you still enjoy the game, I bet you all enjoyed it immensly. Does every game that comes out have to have new inovations or else it simply doesn't live up to your expectations? If so, then I think your expectations are too high. What I think you should all ask yourselves is this, have you ever created a game? Do you know how difficult it is to create a game that will succeed on a large scale? If you think that the game is soooo bad, then what would have you done to make it better than what Blizzards done. Personally, I stand by blizzard, I think that they've been creating great games and setting new standards for years now, I just wish their were more game companies like them. And lastly, for all of you that don't like the game, well that's your own oppinion, but that's the thing, it's just your oppinion. You may hate it, doesn't mean that I can't enjoy it though, so stop trying to convince everyone else to agree with your oppinion. If you like it, play it, if you don't like it, go play something else. |
||
| shenagoogabloga | [mail] Aug 21 2002, 12:39 pm EDT | |
| I agree with everyone who said that the story was great. This is the best game I've ever played!!!!!! | ||
| COMMENTS PAGE 1 |
| BACK TO TOP |