Beta Sign-Ups for WarCraft III

First Orc? by vb.warrior · 2002-01-02 07:29 · Score: 1, Funny

Just curious.....

Re:First Orc? by nyteroot · 2002-01-02 07:33 · Score: 1

good god they slashdotted blizzard.com
is nothing sacred..

--
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
Re:First Orc? by 42forty-two42 · 2002-01-02 07:49 · Score: 1

Seems to be working for me...

never got to play WC before by The_Ronin · 2002-01-02 07:29 · Score: 1

Heard a lot of good things about it... maybe this is the one to jump in on

--

I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!

Re:never got to play WC before by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Find the "Warcraft Battlechest" in your friendly local computer games store. It has Warcraft I, Warcraft II, and the Warcraft II expansion.

The original Battlechest is probably about $10 now and I think I saw the Battle.net (you can play Warcraft II over the Internet) enabled version of the Battlechest for like $20.

Warcraft I is way too old to enjoy now, but it was good for its time and you will want to play it to see how everything started. Warcraft II is definitely an all time classic.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

reboot worthy? by Lumpy · 2002-01-02 07:29 · Score: 3, Informative

the pace that wine is going, you wont need to.

I'm betting that by the time it comes out as a retail product you'll be able to run it under wine or the special mandrake version.

You'd be suprised at how many games and apps actually run nicely under wine.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:reboot worthy? by Captain+Morgan · 2002-01-02 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Certainly TransGaming will see this as a very important game to support. With TransGamings current patch Wine can run some of the very latest games and development appears to be moving foward rapidly.

Support Wine by developing, testing or bug reporting.
Re:reboot worthy? by JWhitlock · 2002-01-02 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm betting that by the time it comes out as a retail product you'll be able to run it under wine or the special mandrake version.
I wonder if they already have a Linux port in the works? In that case, there may be a business reason to keep it out of the hands of the Wine team.
If you are a wine developer signing up to be a beta tester, be safe and don't use the same name you use in the wine source!
Re:Reboot worthy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:51 · Score: 0

You people who think Slashdotting a website adds another 5 trillion users are just morons. There with that out of the way I can continue.

Blizzard, like all other games, will release a Mac version simultaneous to the PC version. The video card requirements will probably end up being a Voodoo 3 or better given the low poly count (just look at the models). 64-128MB of RAM and of course some hard drive space. Unfortunately it doesn't ever look like Blizzard will build a scaleable 3D engine capable of shaders and all.
Re:reboot worthy? by DRO0 · 2002-01-02 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative
I highly doubt a Linux-native port is in the works, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
- No Blizzard titles have ever been ported to Linux
- Loki does not appear to be in a position right now to do a "AAA" port of this magnitude
Maybe the fact that Sam Latinga(sp?) was at Loki and now at Blizzard may help the LInux cause, but I'm not holding my breath.
Re:reboot worthy? by bigbadwlf · 2002-01-02 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Blizzard finally seems to be acknowledging that Linux exists, at least.
On their movie download page, the links now say "Download for PC/Linux" and are in DivX format.
(as if it's not a PC if it runs Linux, right?)
*snicker*
Re:reboot worthy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:22 · Score: 0

I don't reboot under Windows 2000.
Re:reboot worthy? by Chris+Burke · 2002-01-02 09:15 · Score: 2

Not to mention that Blizzard has been openly negative about the idea of Linux ports. Plus, while having Sam there certainly means there's someone who likes Linux in the company, he's specifically stated he's not working on Linux-related items. I'm only suggesting breath-holding to people it'd be funny to see pass out.

Oh well. Wine runs Diablo II pretty damn well. :D

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Reboot worthy? by yesthatguy · 2002-01-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Yes! Because reboots are no longer being made, and are very limited in quantity. :)

For the person who didn't get it, "sponge worthy" was (at least, it may have other sources as well) a term used in a Seinfeld episode. In brief, the sponge is a birth control product used be a female (and therefore her partner doesn't need to use a condom), and after it is taken off the market, Elaine judges whether or not a man is "sponge worthy" - because there are few sponges left (she has a case), the guy has to be worth it for her to use one, rather than his using a condom.

--
Yes! That guy!
Re:Reboot worthy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 12:52 · Score: 0

heh, I can't believe that didn't get a single mod point towards funny :) good catch BTW...
Re:Reboot worthy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 13:13 · Score: 0

simulateusly on mac? Ha!. If its anything like starcraft, mac users will be lucky if they see a port.

If anything, it's worth trying for beta by f00zbll · 2002-01-02 07:30 · Score: 2

Blizzard has had a good track record. Even though WC3 has seem some delays, Blizzard has always lived by the motto of only releasing the best product they can produce. Even if it is not worth buying, it is worth signing up for the beta to see what it does.

From the last time I looked at the game specs, it should be interesting.

Re:If anything, it's worth trying for beta by UberQwerty · 2002-01-02 08:27 · Score: 1

I seem to be the only person who thinks so, but...

Blizzard doesn't have a good track record.

1) Warcraft II was a good game, and so was Starcraft, but they were both a little heavy on the micromanagement and a little light on actual strategy.

2) Diablo and II were both very addictive, but enormously shallow. After four hours of play, you've seen everything the game has to show, and all that's left is to explore every possible combination of random item and skill.

3) None of their games have been groundbreaking in any catagory, and they tend to spend a metric assload on graphics and sound but not too much time worrying about gameplay Exploding Sheep was probably their only original idea.

4) They have never strayed from their one game concept - control one sprite and make it try to kill other sprites by clicking on them.

--

PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Re:If anything, it's worth trying for beta by Steveftoth · 2002-01-02 08:46 · Score: 2

One thing about Blizzards games though is that they are always released with less bugs then the competition. No Blizard game that I've played (WCII, SC, Diablo, D2 ) has ever hosed my system or needed a patch to play. Most need tweaks to prevent gameplay bugs, but this is not unsual. At least you can play the game for MANY hours without requiring a reboot or having to save every 5 steps. Actually, D2 had some problems with my friends machine, but he had to reinstall his video drivers anyway.... ;) (couldn't run in 3d mode) If you are looking for groundbreaking gameplay, then look elsewhere, Blizzard only releases tried and true gameplay that they know will sell. (One reason they cancled the Worlds of Warcraft game, those adventure style games were tanking at the time) Their games always are at least 1 or 2 years behind the tech curve, SC came out as 3d accelerators got popular, and D2 doesn't even really use any 3d features of a 3d accelerator. Actually, sometimes I wish that game developers took Blizzards approach to development, then there would be more quality games and less patching.
Re:If anything, it's worth trying for beta by FrostedChaos · 2002-01-02 10:09 · Score: 1

1) Warcraft II was a good game, and so was Starcraft, but they were both a little heavy on the micromanagement and a little light on actual strategy.
No, not really. If anything, I think that starcraft, especially, needs less micromanagement than some of its competitors. In Age of Kings and Age of Empires (both are Microsoft games) there are like 6 different kinds of resources for you to worry about. Blizzard kept it simple with just minerals and vespene.

It would be nice to see a button for selecting idle workers, and possibly the ability to have unit groups of more than 12, but these aren't things you really need. Starcraft is the only RTS that I know about that offers "attack mode" where you can tell your units to walk to a location *but fight back if they're attacked on the way*. Sounds like a little thing, right? Wrong.

Warcraft II isn't usually that complicated, but starcraft strategy gets *very* complicated. True, basically you build up an army and then attack, but you have to decide what units to use, who to attack, and where. Since you don't usually have complete information about what the enemy is doing, this gets really complicated real fast.

I can tell you this much: someone who knows when to attack, and what to build, will almost always win over someone who can micromanage his workers, or build 3 bases simultaneously.

As regards Diablo I and II, I've never played them. I've never been a fan of hack n' slash.

3) None of their games have been groundbreaking in any catagory, and they tend to spend a metric assload on graphics and sound but not too much time worrying about gameplay Exploding Sheep was probably their only original idea.
Actually, I think the exact opposite is true. Almost all of Blizzard's games have been groundbreaking. They tend to spen a lot of time worrying about gameplay and less about graphics and sound. Their graphics have traditionally been a year or two behind the tech curve. You don't need the latest greatest box to play. But, their graphics have looked good. It doesn't look like an ancient NES game (unlike command and conquer.)

Especially in starcraft, Blizzard spent a lot of time worrying about things like unit balance (unlike Command and Conquer), playability, and convenience. The average length for a game isn't 4 hours, unlike Age of Empires.

If you want a game that requires hard thinking, try chess or go. But even in those games, memorization of previous board positions and learning through experience play a large part. And looking down your nose at "clicking on sprites" doesn't make you 1337. It just makes you someone who probably got his ass kicked in starcraft or warcraft, and wants to make excuses for himself.

--
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Re:If anything, it's worth trying for beta by UberQwerty · 2002-01-02 14:36 · Score: 1

In my first super-risky anti-blizzard post, I made my statements inoffensively. You did not respond in kind. I'm not going to be nice to you either.

If anything, I think that starcraft, especially, needs less micromanagement than some of its competitors. In Age of Kings and Age of Empires (both are Microsoft games) there are like 6 different kinds of resources for you to worry about. Blizzard kept it simple with just minerals and vespene

If you think fewer resources is better, try Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. That only has one resource. It sucks. But I agree with you about the MS-sponsored games; they're even worse than StarCraft. They don't excuse it, though. You have to be tanked up on caffiene to stand a chance in a serious StarCraft game, whereas in a Total Annihilation (the game I mean to praise) game, you can often get up and go to the bathroom without pausing it and have your opponent not even notice. That is because of TA's waypoint system. The StarCraft waypoint system sucks - you can't queue anything other than movement commands. TA lets you queue anything.

Starcraft strategy gets *very* complicated. True, basically you build up an army and then attack, but you have to decide what units to use, who to attack, and where. Since you don't usually have complete information about what the enemy is doing, this gets really complicated real fast.
There are about four different main options for each race in terms of unit strategies. Choosing whom to attack, when, and where - that is StarCraft's high point. However, it isn't very complicated. Attack their main in early-game, attack their expansions once they start making them. Exceptions are only made in the case of air attacks, which are mainly successful due to the ridiculous amount of micromanagement needed to defend against them.

Almost all of Blizzard's games have been groundbreaking. They tend to spen a lot of time worrying about gameplay and less about graphics and sound. Their graphics have traditionally been a year or two behind the tech curve. You don't need the latest greatest box to play. But, their graphics have looked good. It doesn't look like an ancient NES game
It seems like the only argument you make that their games are groundbreaking is that they don't have such good graphics after all. Look at games like Lemmings, and Wolfenstein. Maybe Warcraft I. Those were groundbreaking. No Blizzard game ever had an original concept. Or not a big one - I guess you could count "stimpacks" original. Or "cloaking".

Starcraft is the only RTS that I know about that offers "attack mode" where you can tell your units to walk to a location *but fight back if they're attacked on the way*. Sounds like a little thing, right? Wrong.
First, in SC, units don't just fight back if attacked. They attack any enemy unit they see. You don't have the option to tell them to just return fire.
In Total Annihilation, and all other Cavedog RTSs, you can set your units to be in "Hold Fire", "Return Fire", or "Fire At Will" mode. You can guess what they do in each mode. However, these changes are permenant, and can be set at the factory to be default for every unit built there. You can even have the units keep moving at their destination while they're firing and then break off when they get there, unilke in SC, where the units forget they had movement orders until after the battle's over.

If you want a game that requires hard thinking, try chess or go. But even in those games, memorization of previous board positions and learning through experience play a large part. And looking down your nose at "clicking on sprites" doesn't make you 1337. It just makes you someone who probably got his ass kicked in starcraft or warcraft, and wants to make excuses for himself.
1) I actually look down my nose at people who try to apply the term "1337" to themselves, not to sprites. One of my favorite games of all is "Castlevania: Symphony of the Night", a 2-d sidescroller that came out long after Quake. What I was objecting to was the fact that Blizzard never does anything else.
2) I do play chess, and I appreciate the hard thinking. But weren't you earlier telling me that SC was very complicated? Are you backing off on that now?
3) I am not some loser who resented his inability to accomplish at StarCraft and started bashing it. (Even if I were, this argument would be ad hominum and null - you have to tell me what's wrong with what I said, not what's wrong with me.) I was playing StarCraft two weeks before it was released, and I was consistantly in the top 500 at it before Brood War. But I couldn't stick with it once I started playing Total Annihilation, which in my not-at-all humble opinion is a better game in every way (except graphics and sound).

--

PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Re:If anything, it's worth trying for beta by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 15:18 · Score: 0

"But I agree with you about the MS-sponsored games; they're even worse than StarCraft. "

I loved Warcraft 2, was bored by StarCraft and absoluetely went crazy about Age of Kings from Ensemble Studios ( and NOT Microsoft.)
Going back to Warcraft feels like going back to ZX Spectrum.

WarCraft3 like StarCraft by FortKnox · 2002-01-02 07:30 · Score: 2

WarCraft 3 looks to bring something to RTS that hasn't really been seen since Star Craft. Different races (4 in warcraft 3!) with completely different buildings, units, and strategies.

Hopefully they'll make the game as balanced as starcraft, and, hopefully, longer lasting online than starcraft (it takes less than 15 minutes for most starcraft games, unless you are super-defense).

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by Xerithane · 2002-01-02 07:38 · Score: 2

Balanced as starcraft expansion. The first edition was not so balanced. War2 however was superbly balanced based off min/lumber.

I am twitching in anticipation.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by Robotech_Master · 2002-01-02 07:39 · Score: 2

Frankly, I wish they'd make a Starcraft II, or at least start making more Maps of the Week|Month. Starcraft is still a popular game, it still has about a zillion players and mappers, and its trigger system is intricate enough that you can do just about anything with it--witness all the "Magic: The Gathering," "Sniper Paintball," "Pokemon," and even "Bomb Bin Laden in Tora Bora" maps that are being played at any given time. One fellow even made a terrific Battle Chess style map for Starcraft that plays really well.

I'm disheartened by the lack of support Starcraft has received in comparison to Warcraft and Diablo.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by cHiphead · 2002-01-02 07:40 · Score: 0

you obviously haven't played me much. super defense is the only way to play if you want to win against me.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by Tiroth · 2002-01-02 07:41 · Score: 2

"most starcraft games" probably take 15 minutes because one or both players are no good at the game. It's become harder to find good games (_period_), but in its heyday it was not uncommon to have long, good games. Super-defense is actually an incredibly poor strategy which rapidly results in a loss.

The only real problem with starcraft ended up being the players: too many just wanted to play mega-money maps and all strategic decisions went out the window. I'm sure WC3, no matter how good a game it is, will suffer the same problem. Too many people just don't have the patience (or brainpower?) to actually play the game...they just want to build lots of units and run around the map.

(Which is fine I guess if that is what gets you going)
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by jandrese · 2002-01-02 07:47 · Score: 2

Amen to that. It seems like every time I go online the only thing I find is a bunch of Big Gay Hunters games set on fastest. Nobody seems to want to do anything other than just build a bunch of units and rush. That's why I usually play with friends (on normal mode with speed set at normal or merely fast). It lends to a much more strategic game overall.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by FortKnox · 2002-01-02 08:04 · Score: 1

If they'd allow mod'ing of starcraft (like halflife), we'd see a boom in RTS. Since starcraft is only 2.5-D (with the ramps and three possible levels), and warcraft 3 is full 3D, they'd still be able to sell a product, and get people interested in blizzard with the mod'ing.

I would jump at the opportunity to use the StarCraft engine to make mods.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by DRO0 · 2002-01-02 08:09 · Score: 1

That Bunkers "mod" released by Blizzard was funner than Starcraft itself in a lot of ways. It required tactical strategy w/o all the micromanagement hell, the action very fast-paced, and the games finished quickly.

Will WC3 have King of the Hill and other multiplayer variants? That would be very fun IMO.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by abolith · 2002-01-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Damn Skippy !! I myself haven't been in an online game in oh prolly bout 3 years now. LAN only here baby!! we even setup a few house rules just to make sure no one tries anything brainless (a few of our other players are...um, questionable at times) like "cannon-expanding", or "grunt rushing".
Interesting games are much more fun to play than the typical 15 year-old "I rush you, you rush me, we're a grunt rush fam-i-ly" type of game.

just my 2 cents

--
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You can't do "anything" with the trigger system. It is just a simple scripting language intended to make single player campaign maps. Instead everyone felt the need to try to turn Starcraft into something else: If you want to play an RPG, go buy Baldur's Gate II. If you want to play Pokemon, go buy Pokemon. If you want to bomb Bin Laden, join the USAF. The fact is that all these "conversions" have the same units, tilesets, sounds, spells, etc.. of original Starcraft. And for the most part they all suck. (And the idiots who make them fell the need to name the files in all caps, l33t speak, and using nonstandard characters: you get filenames like "+åßßß$|\|1pe|2 P@1n+ß@ll GOLD ULTRA FINAL VERSION V2.08!@!@(TM).scx" which actually cause problems with the Windows filesystem if you ever feel like moving them or deleting them or something)

Trigger Maps along with Hunters/BGH ruined Starcraft for everyone except the *very* good and the morons. There are basically three types of games running in Starcraft:

1)High level ladder games. You have to be either a very good Korean, or a cheater, or both, to have any chance up here.

2)BGH with morons.

3)Crapass trigger maps with morons.

I really wish Warcraft 3 would not include multiplayer Trigger maps, but it probably will, and within a few months it will probably descend into the same idiocy as Starcraft.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:26 · Score: 1

Another note. All the BGH games are on Fastest speed, which turns the game into a test of how quick you can click instead of a test of strategy. Blizzard even stated somewhere that Fastest and Slowest had both been joke settings i.e. "LOL look how my marine is walking in slow motion" or "lol look my zergling is hyperactive". Except the idiots made it so that if you actually try to set the game to something below Fastest you get cursed at.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by Rudeboy777 · 2002-01-02 16:41 · Score: 1

As a long time Starcraft and War2 player, I would LOVE it if they somehow eliminated those $$$$ (BGH) maps and made the fastest speed setting reasonable. I'd say fastest in Starcraft isn't too bad, but in Warcraft 2, the fastest speed setting introduced in Battle.Net Edition eliminates much of the strategy involved. It hurts the quality of the game (not to mention making subtle human strategy even more hopelessly outmatched by the orcs and their bloodlust). I hope they don't do this again.

As for BGH-style maps, from what I understand, in Warcraft 3 you have "heroes" who will lead your troops into battles and provide some bonuses. These heroes can gain experience levels in combat. I'm hoping that to preserve the balance of hero development, you wont be able to mine 1000000 gold quickly and get crazy levels, but rather level up at a reasonable rate (Diablo 2 would be a silly game if you could gain experience at a ridiculous rate).

At the very least, I think it would be great if you could somehow filter out games on certain speed settings or maps.

Waiting patiently.....

--
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
Re:WarCraft3 like StarCraft by mongoks · 2002-01-07 12:33 · Score: 1

Hopefully they'll make the game as balanced as starcraft, and, hopefully, longer lasting online than starcraft (it takes less than 15 minutes for most starcraft games, unless you are super-defense).
The short games is more a function of battle.net and the modified maps than it is of StarCraft itself. Big Game Hunters which is a high resource map came out and eliminated the need for players to worry about base expansion tactics. It also had the effect of creating lame things like cannon pushes and mass rushes because people weren't so concerned about using up resources early. StarCraft is capable of longer and more tactical games, but that isn't what the battle.net crowd was into.

I can't wait by Wind_Walker · 2002-01-02 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Warcraft III is, by far, one of the most eagerly anticipated games of, oh, the past EPOCH. My only problem is this: To be a Beta tester, you have to have a lot of free time to play and debug the game, especially online. This means long hours of sitting at night, playing Warcraft III endlessly. Why is this bad? Oh, let me count the ways:

Civilization III
Halo
GTA3
Final Fantasy X
Super Smash Brothers: Melee
Pikmin

Not to mention the countless TV programs, and...

They say that Truth is the first casualty of war. I say that sleep is the first victim of Beta testing...

Re:I can't wait by sharkey · 2002-01-02 08:52 · Score: 2

long hours of sitting at night, playing Warcraft III endlessly.

Oh, if only they had delivered the beta on Monday. Then we would have had something to do on New Year's Eve.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:I can't wait by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 15:57 · Score: 0

The reason Blizzard games are "anticipated so eagerly" is because Blizzard spends ungodly amounts of money on marketing. I've been kinda bored with most Blizzard games. Most people liked the heavily-hyped Starcraft -- I thought TA was a better game. Of course, it didn't have tons of FMV or as many ads, but the UI was much more powerful and the game was more fun. Diablo was also hyped incredibly much. To be fair, I haven't played D2, but D1 was a really shallow game where you pretty much clicked on any moving objects you saw. When I first saw it, I guessed it was a "pseudo-RPG" for people with really short attention spans or something. Warcraft 2 was interesting and new, but not all that much fun after you'd played it a few times.

The fact that Blizzard is absolutely opposed to ever making Linux games is even more of a turn-off.

What I'm interested in... by Nos. · 2002-01-02 07:32 · Score: 2

Is that unlike WC2 and SC, you'll be working with a much smaller number of units. No more groups of Bloodlusted Orcs or speed upgraded zealots pounding on your front door. Its going more towards small groups of specialized troups where using special abilites will be of greater importance than pure numbers.

Though I really enjoyed both SC and WC(I & 2) it will be nice to try this out. I'll be picking it up the day it's released, though hopefully I'll make it as a beta tester and get some experience before the rest of the world :)

Re:What I'm interested in... by Wind_Walker · 2002-01-02 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you're interested in not having tons and tons of units, with the focus more on strategy (you know, the "S" in "RTS"?) then I suggest Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns. Here's the reviews over on gamerankings.com. And guess what? If you don't like booting out of Linux (if you boot *into* Linux), it's even been ported over there by Loki!
It's a very good game, with heavy focus on flanking units, configuring well-balanced troops, and actual STRATEGY, with an innovative and streamlined resource management model. It's highly recommended to anybody who wants to play a strategy game.
Re:What I'm interested in... by the_2nd_coming · 2002-01-02 07:54 · Score: 1

what!!!! no more pig farm defence!!!!

I loved that thing, set up 2 or 3 rows of pig farms then line the area behind with towers....no orc ruch would stand a chance.....of cource.....a dragon or a wizzard Ice attack realy put a damper on things.........

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:What I'm interested in... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:54 · Score: 0

If only the pig farms could be built faster ;)
Re:What I'm interested in... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:32 · Score: 0

Oh no! Small groups of units? Tell me this isn't so... How will I get to play FREE GRUNTS!?!?!?!
Re:What I'm interested in... by YodaToad · 2002-01-02 10:40 · Score: 1

A nice game to check out if you like small groups of units instead of the large ones with 10's of the same unit is Battle Realms. I just picked it up last week and I'm really impressed with it. One of the cool gameplay elements it adds that hasn't been in an rts before (i don't think...) is that instead of producing 5 different units from the same building (like the terran barracks) after you get the buildings later down in the tech tree, you actually have to train the lowest level warrior first and then train them at other buildings to get different (and more powerful) units.
Re:What I'm interested in... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 18:52 · Score: 0

Well, since your opponent will have special abilities as powerful as yours (if the game is really balanced), the person with more units will usually win again... :)

ignoring it. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:32 · Score: 0

If neverwinter nights comes out anything in the next 6 months, I'll be too busy to care.

Gamespot preview by DeadBugs · 2002-01-02 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative

As always Gamespot has a good preview including screenshots

--
http://www.kubuntu.org/

Game Impressions by stealthyburrito · 2002-01-02 07:32 · Score: 1

There are so few games that actually leave a lasting impression on you, and this was definiately one of them.

I think this redefined RTS in the 90's.
WarCraft I/II for RTS
Half-Life for FPS
BattleZone I/II for hybrid RTS/FPS (if you haven't tried this one, go buy it! It's in the $5 bin)

Re:Game Impressions by zmokhtar · 2002-01-02 07:50 · Score: 1

I think you are leaving out Dune 2. I think it was truly the first widespread RTS (real time strategy). It's only fault was that it didn't have multi-player and you couldn't select multiple units. But it was way ahead of its time.

Too bad Westwood blew it with Command and Conquer.

--
Why aren't we told when editors moderate our posts?
Re:Game Impressions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:50 · Score: 0

thanks for you life story. Im rapt at attention.
Re:Game Impressions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:23 · Score: 0

Frogger. You forgot Frogger.

Be nice if... by abrink · 2002-01-02 07:34 · Score: 0

It would be nice if there was a linux version coming out too. I kinda doubt it though, anyone have any news on this?

Re:Be nice if... by praedor · 2002-01-02 10:38 · Score: 2

The FAQ provides the answer: no. There WILL be a unix version...for Macs, but that doesn't do linux a lick of good (nor *BSD flavors either).

I have given up asking game companies to release linux versions. They simply will not do so - they do not want the user support headache and do not believe the effort will be made up for in sales (see id Software's failed attempt at boxed linux games).

Instead, I ask game companies (that are not owned by M$) to consider producing and releasing an unsupported linux game binary for download - like id Software does now (and before their failed boxed game trial). It allows them to produce a simple binary with little extra effort on their part and it doesn't require them to provide customer support for it. That is left to the community or the goodness of company coders providing information/support in newsgroups on an ad hoc basis.

Seriously, it is much more like that at this stage of linux user-hood that one could convince a company to release a near-painless unsupported linux game binary than to try to convince them to release a full-blown, supported linux version of some game...barring a deal with Loki, that is.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Any news on system requirements? by justinstreufert · 2002-01-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Their website appears already slashdotted, otherwise I would investigate for myself.

Do I need a 64MB water-cooled graphics card? Will it require an as-yet unreleased 3 GHz processor due to the wealth of debug code? Will the silly arsed Mac users of the world (such as myself) be able to participate? If not, do they ever intend to release a Mac version?

Justin

--
"Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels

Re:Any news on system requirements? by Wyatt+Earp · 2002-01-02 07:43 · Score: 1

It's going to be Mac and Windows when it ships.
Re:Any news on system requirements? by Cynikal · 2002-01-02 08:02 · Score: 1

actually Blizzard has a good track record for making impressive games with low requirements, their code seems to be very tight, and i remember playing endless games of starcraft on my old 166 without a hitch, while age of empires (released around the same time, and same type of game) bogged everything down within 15 minutes of game play..

really though, when it comes to optimized code, great game play, and solid support, you know Blizzard will deliver, no need to even ask.. their only flaw is delivering ON TIME, but hey, i can live with the wait, cause i know i know its gonna be worth the wait.
Re:Any news on system requirements? by DRO0 · 2002-01-02 08:06 · Score: 1

Blizzard games have always been on time. After all they never publish release dates and they only release "when it's done". :)
Re:Any news on system requirements? by MindStalker · 2002-01-02 08:16 · Score: 1

Actually they want a variety of 3d card ranging in power, as they want to be able to test the game in as many configurations as possible. (Obviously as debug code is still in there they will be aiming a bit higher end than the final though)
Re:Any news on system requirements? by Cynikal · 2002-01-02 08:20 · Score: 1

hate to argue, but i remember waiting for diablo 2.. waiting for fall of 99, then spring of '00 and then so one and so on.. ok so they didnt give a specific date, but they were way behind their "around this time" release dates, but again i dont care, much better to release their best, than to cut corners to release on time...
Re:Any news on system requirements? by HalfFlat · 2002-01-02 13:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

really though, when it comes to optimized code, great game play, and solid support, you know Blizzard will deliver, no need to even ask..
Clearly you haven't been playing much Diablo II.
Diablo II has been plagued with graphics slow downs - including obvious redundant overdraws! - that meant that it ran unsteadily even on top of the line hardware at release date.

Despite marketting it as an online game with secure servers, the servers in question were regularly overloaded and unstable. They were - and still are - not close net-wise to a large number of players, yet the gameplay is very intolerant of high latency connections to servers.

Play over a local network is plagued with inexplicable latency spikes.

It was (and with the expansion still is) a hugely popular game, yet promised continued support in the way of new runewords, cube recipies and the like have never materialised.

They changed gameplay rather than address underlying flaws in the graphics code of the game.

By all accounts, Starcraft is a well designed, well coded, and well supported game. Their more recent project - Diablo II - is good fun, but in spite of rather than because of the game's support and performance.

I am wary of Warcraft III. If it fulfills its promise it will be grand. I'll wait and see.
Re:Any news on system requirements? by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 14:54 · Score: 1

The Diablo games aren't made by the real Blizzard. There is Blizzard North (responsible for Diablo and Diablo II) and Blizzard HQ, responsible for everything else. Blizzard HQ was the original Blizzard, Blizzard North is someone they bought out. There are 2 teams working at Blizzard HQ, and 1 at Blizzard North. Team 1 at HQ is making War3, Team 2 is making World of Warcraft. Blizzard North is doing secret stuff now.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Re:Any news on system requirements? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 16:12 · Score: 0

If not, do they ever intend to release a Mac version?

Let's hope not!
Re:Any news on system requirements? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 19:15 · Score: 0

thx for the info man :)
Re:Any news on system requirements? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-03 05:28 · Score: 0

And that is supposed to explain bugs in software? Are you suggesting that Bliz North are a bunch of lame coders who can't even create a relatively bug-free game?
You seem to forget that Battle.Net is run by Blizzard as well. Blizzard South.
Re:Any news on system requirements? by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-03 14:37 · Score: 1

This was to suggest that any expectations coming from Diablo probably shouldn't be applied to Warcraft III, because entirely different people are making them.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

January 7th by eAndroid · 2002-01-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Looks like January 7th is shaping up to be a great day. Apple's dropping hype bombs about the Jan 7 Macworld keynote, and now this.

Spectacular.

--

I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.

I have a few ideas for improving beta testing... by Quasar1999 · 2002-01-02 07:36 · Score: 2

hmmm beta testing... now a really neat idea would be if they included source code with the test, that way we could fix any bugs we find instead of prolonging the testing phase...

Ah hell, who am I kidding, I just wanna see the source code... and the damned NDA they make you sign would prevent me from having any fun with it... bah...

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Is it just me... by dotBlue · 2002-01-02 07:36 · Score: 1

or is Blizzard /.ed already?

Damn straight by TheGreenLantern · 2002-01-02 07:37 · Score: 1

I wonder if WC3 will be reboot worthy?

Has there been a Blizzard game that hasn't been?

Seriously, you can talk all you want about the Diablo's being a hack-n-slash fest, or the Warcraft/Starcraft games being nothing more than Dune/C&C knockoffs, but pound for pound, you'd be hard pressed to name me another PC game developer that has consistently produced better games over the past 6-7 years.

Too bad this isn't the World of Warcraft beta, but I suppose we'll have to wait until late '02 for that.

--

It hurts when I pee.

Re:Damn straight by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:35 · Score: 1

Diablo and Diablo II were just shallow graphical ripoffs of Roguelike RPG games. Go play Nethack, Angband, or ADOM. They have much more depth and gameplay, although they are lacking in storyline.

Diablo was good for its time, but Diablo II isn't. It barely improved....

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

RTS games are soooo boring! by TheNecromancer · 2002-01-02 07:39 · Score: 1

Seems to me that WC3 doesn't bring anything new to the RTS table for gameplay. Sure, there are new races, units, items, and a 3D world, but this has been done before(Starcraft). It won't be long before some 12 yr. old will have the game boiled down to the best race, units to build, and building order so that he will be unstoppable!

Can you say "bloodlusted-ogre attack, followed by a few death-and-decay spells"?

I'll stick with Baldur's Gate: at least that game has more challenges that last longer, making the game playable for longer!

--
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart

Re:RTS games are soooo boring! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:47 · Score: 0

Heh, I think i've owned you on bnet before. Damn, whining newb...lol
Re:RTS games are soooo boring! by Tiroth · 2002-01-02 07:50 · Score: 2

Have you ever actually played SC:BW? There are many, many strategies that work. The thing that makes the game so interesting is that there is no such thing as a "winning" strategy: against a good opponent it comes down to economics (do more cost in damage to your opponent than the cost of your units) and risk-taking/luck.

Believe me, every time I've seen an "unstoppable" build order, strat, etc it's been fun for a bit figuring out a counter...but there always is one.
Re:RTS games are soooo boring! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:20 · Score: 0

true..that 'unstoppable build order' stuff is bs.. it's only 'unstoppable' if
1) you're a moron
2) you're not very good @ sc:bw
3) you don't research counter-attacks
4) you don't attack fast and attack hard(especially early onin the game)
Re:RTS games are soooo boring! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:43 · Score: 0

It all comes down to speed. You have to attack, and attack fast to win.
Re:RTS games are soooo boring! by skt · 2002-01-02 12:49 · Score: 1

Starcraft is not a 3d game as it has no 3d engine. It is about as three dimensional as the first Duke Nukem. The developers used some tricks to provide some feel of a third dimension inside of the game engine, but it does not actually exist. If you want to see a RTS game that does use a 3d engine, check out total annihilation.

And only 18 months late! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:40 · Score: 0

I think blizzard should switch to the "It's Done When It's Done" philosophy. http://www.gamespot.com/features/warcraft3_pre/ind ex.html

Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:41 · Score: 0

Don't forget the return of HHH to the WWF! That will happen on the 7th, too! He is The Game!

Dear Blizzard by Xerithane · 2002-01-02 07:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Please choose me to be a beta tester. Not only have I purchased about 6 copies of Warcraft 2 (For me, for friends, more for me after first two copies were stolen at a lan party, one more for battle.net), 1 copy of Warcraft 1, the Warcraft Battle Chest (Just cause) and Starcraft, and the Starcraft Battle Chest but I have an unhealthy addiction to strategy games. I require little sleep, and have submitted a bug report for starcraft already.

I promise to give you my first born child for a chance to be a beta tester.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Whore nicht! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 07:42 · Score: 1, Informative

The beta signup is scheduled for a 24-hour period on www.blizzard.com, beginning on Monday, January 7th at 11:00 p.m Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8). and ending on Tuesday, January 8th at 11:00 p.m Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8). Following the registration period, we will randomly select 5,000 testers based on a variety of system configurations and locations. Please note that multiple submissions will result in disqualification.

Will be worth the wait by bfire · 2002-01-02 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Typical of Blizzard to hype their games years in advance, but they always end up producing classics. The betas always signal that the going gold is coming fast. I will definitely sign up for this one.

By the way, a great site to read up more on War3 is here.

Let's cross our fingers. by Bender+Unit+22 · 2002-01-02 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

As much as I loved playing Warcraft I/II, I fear that they really have to got some new great ideas. When these types of games were introduced to the public, the game concept was new and fresh and with the help of coax ethernet it gave a new dimension to the PC games market. But now we have seen so many games since, most of them "updated" version with better graphics. So one hopes that they have managed twist the gameplay just enough to have us oldtimers excited again(it seems to require more that just fancy attributes these days). If they fail at that, there's always a new crowd that haven't the pleasure of the old games and are ready for this.

Re:Let's cross our fingers. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 11:59 · Score: 0

It looks like they've tried to change the dynamic and pacing of the game compared to past releases.

WC3 is based more on small squads and tactics rather than huge gangbangs like SC. Also it focuses more on action/combat than mining. Supposedly...

This sucks!!!!! by The+Fold · 2002-01-02 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, not that there's a WC3 beta signup, that rules! But these things are always limited to the US and Canada, what about us poor UK peeps who play the games as well? Can't we get a look in :(

Re:This sucks!!!!! by Cynikal · 2002-01-02 08:09 · Score: 1

too bad, get your own game development companys :P
Re:This sucks!!!!! by Tim+C · 2002-01-02 09:19 · Score: 2

We have them, thanks, and very pretty Black and White is too :p

I'm with the original poster, though (as an avid fan of WCs 1 and 2, and StarCraft and BroodWar) - we in the UK can access Battle.net, and have PCs, so why can't we take part in the beta?

It's just not fair, I tell ya! :-(

(Hey, I've got to have something to really show off the capabilities of my soon-to-arrive GeForce3 + ADSL connection...)

Cheers,

Tim

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:This sucks!!!!! by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:39 · Score: 1

1.) Black and White may be pretty but it is a horribly boring game.

2.) Blizzard wants people to be in US/Canada so that everyone can be close in timezones. Thus there will be more people online during the beta.

3.) Blizzard also doesn't feel like paying shipping to everywhere in the world.

4.) Can you imagine if someone in Hong Kong or Taiwan won a beta? There'd be $3 Warcraft 3 Beta CDs for sale all throughout Asia, and they'd probably set up their own Battle.net so they could play without Blizzard shutting off that CD Key.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Re:This sucks!!!!! by Tim+C · 2002-01-02 22:39 · Score: 2

1.) Well, each to their own - I admit that I've not played it much since completing the single player game, but then it keeps crashing on my machine...

2.) Fair enough, but for WC3, I'd take a two week holiday and shift my sleeping patterns to match ;-)

3.) So make it available via a password/IP-protected download. No shipping, minimal bandwidth costs, and no greater risk of copying.

4.) What makes you think that there won't be copies of the beta up on warez sites within 24 hours of the first CDs being shipped anyway? Sure, Hong Kong, etc have bigger, more open piracy problems, but don't imagine that the US and Canada are piracy free.

Don't mind me, I'm just disappointed that the beta is closed to me :-(

Cheers,

Tim

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Reboot worthy? by thallgren · 2002-01-02 07:45 · Score: 1

I wonder if WC3 will be reboot worthy.

What do you mean? I don't think this game work in Linux.

Regards, Tommy

Why is there not a beta in the UK? by TMCGames.com · 2002-01-02 07:54 · Score: 0

Come on!!! the uk and europe in general are a massive electronic entertainment market, why are there only betas in canada and the us? ( :( I wana play 2)

Warcraft III info by proxima · 2002-01-02 08:00 · Score: 5, Informative

I've already seen a few simple questions that are answered in the Warcraft III FAQ. Some highlights: Yes, there will be a Mac version. No, there won't be a Linux version.

From the looks of things, WarCraft III will continue the age-old tradition of requiring decent hardware to run well. Fortunately, they apparently are making a full-featured map editor (probably similar to Starcraft's, which was VERY impressive, unlike Civ II/IIIs).

Also, they finally are providing high resolution support, while still (somehow) maintaining lower resolution support for those of us with not-so-good video cards.

Looks like it's going to be another addicting Blizzard game for me, but I'm glad it won't compete with my Civ III playing time for awhile.

--
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan

Re:Warcraft III info by Segfault+11 · 2002-01-02 08:33 · Score: 2

Warcraft II was a demanding game? I remember it (the original DOS version) seeming to run flawlessly on the DX4-100 I had at the time, and just as well on my friend's SX-25... in the age of 120+ MHz Pentiums, it was one of the few games that weren't a stretch of my system specs.

--
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
Re:Warcraft III info by proxima · 2002-01-02 08:40 · Score: 1

I was referring to computer games in general. It would seem that most of Blizzard's games are in production so long that by the time they are released they can be played in a broad range of computers.

However, now that they have added 3D chip features, Warcraft III will probably need either a decent video card (Geforce or greater) and/or a relatively fast processor (600-700 Mhz+). Of course, these are guesses.

Yes, WarCraft II ran on everything, but Starcraft is pretty slow with 48 megs of RAM on a P150 (my laptop). Having more than a few computers in a lan-based multiplayer makes it too slow to enjoy.

--
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Re:Warcraft III info by jdunlevy · 2002-01-08 06:41 · Score: 1
Turns out the beta test is for folks meeting these requirements only:
- Your computer must be at least a Pentium III 600 (or equivalent), with 128 MB RAM or more.
- Your computer must have a mouse, 400 MB of available hard drive space, a 4X CD-ROM or faster, a 32 MB 3D accelerator card with Direct3D support, a DirectX compatible 16 bit sound card, a 28.8 modem (or better) with Internet connectivity, and DirectX 8.1.
- You must be running Windows 98, 98SE, 2000 (running with local Administrator privileges), ME, or XP to play the Warcraft® III: Reign of Chaos(TM) beta on your system.
- Your Internet connection must be capable of running 32-bit Windows socket applications (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer).
- You must have a valid e-mail address.
As a Mac OS X user, I was hoping my less popular operating system would give me an advangtage in getting in as a beta tester. Wonder if they'll do a separate Mac beta test later? Their site still says they expect to ship the Mac "as close as possible" to the Windows ship date.

Reboot worthy? by Derek · 2002-01-02 08:02 · Score: 2, Troll

"I wonder if WC3 will be reboot worthy."

Uhhh, is that anything like being "sponge worthy"?

-Derek

WLBC by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:03 · Score: 0

Hey, doesn't Warlords: Battlecry already thoroughly kick this game's ass? It has NINE races, heros, quests, neutral towns, all that stuff Blizzard is saying is cool and new- It's been done! Damn it, WBC is the coolest game, EVER.

Reboot worthy by pdqlamb · 2002-01-02 08:06 · Score: 2

I wonder if WC3 will be reboot worthy.

I see some posts have touched on the "reboot to Windows" aspect of this. Has anybody else noticed that, with most Windows games, you also have to reboot when you're done? My girls got at least one game this Christmas (Tony Hawke 2) that causes more strange stuff than even the average Microsoft Windows upgrade.

I think we need a Linux box for serious stuff and a Windows box to play with. But a Playstation would be cheaper.

Re:Reboot worthy by WildBeast · 2002-01-02 08:13 · Score: 1

a playstation doesn't have porn yet even though some characters look like porn stars.
Re:Reboot worthy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:33 · Score: 0

a) He was referring to rebooting into Windows from Linux. b) If you have to reboot after a game then you should upgrade from Windows 95.
Re:Reboot worthy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 12:57 · Score: 0

upgrade to what.. Windows 98 or ME? Both are equally crappy, but perform the best with Windows games. There are a lot of older PC games that don't work under NT-based operating systems.
Re:Reboot worthy by MikeBabcock · 2002-01-02 15:17 · Score: 2

So _that's_ why they designed the X-box ... no more PC reboots!

"Hey, tired of rebooting your computer after playing a game? Buy an X-box and reboot it instead!"

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Reboot worthy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 15:37 · Score: 0

Nah, he said UPGRADE. Trouble is, they say they won't produce a Linux version.

Only Playable On Battle.Net? by Max+Entropy · 2002-01-02 08:08 · Score: 1

This isn't a very exciting prospect if it's only playable on Battle.Net as the site says. Well, that is, if you happen to have a dialup nibblenet connection like mine!

Re:Only Playable On Battle.Net? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:44 · Score: 0

A while back I had a chance to speak with a rep from Blizzard. One of my questions was "will there be direct connection support for multiplayer games over the Internet as well as battle.net support" the answer to this was a suprising "maybe". I was expecting to hear "no" but from what I heard they where testing that type of support as well as battle.net. If they decide to include that in the final product is all up to them I suppose.

Also on a side note rumor has it that blizzard has their own in house Mac team now. We should start seeing more of their games coming out for MacOS at the same time or close to the launch date of the windows product now (provided this rumor is true of course).

reboot worthy? by ender-iii · 2002-01-02 08:08 · Score: 1

I'm guessing he was refering to rebooting from linux to windows. But how many people reboot windows before playing a game to get maximum proformance?

--
ender-iii

I certainly hope they kept the most important ... by wo1verin3 · 2002-01-02 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

... aspect of WC II.

Clicking on a character multiple times of course!

Click 1 starts with Zug Zug.
yes...
what?
stop bothering me
don't you have anything better to do?
I would not do such things if I were you
my tummy feels funny
BURRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP@#@##$@#$@#$@
Say hello to my little friend...

I spent more time clicking on characters then playing.

Is this for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:12 · Score: 0

I wonder why this news posting is in Slashdot.. It doesn't have any mentions to Linux. I guess the "editors" have lost their /. scripts with the y2k2 bug.

(this may seem to be a troll message.. but, well, it's actually one)

OOG by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:15 · Score: 0

FIRST GRITS
WARM BAWLS
Natalie Portman ate my DK Guy
Goatse.cx
I had sex with a goat
Osama yo momma

Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 08:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

You are very self-centered.

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by RazzleFrog · 2002-01-02 08:35 · Score: 1

That's a good point. I spent a couple seconds clicking on Darth Vader in Galactic Battlegrounds hoping he would get pissed off and say something funny. Or click on Luke and have him say that his daddy can kick my daddy's butt.

Not sure why more games don't have fun stuff like this.

Beta Period Moved! by jmoriarty · 2002-01-02 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

I know a guy who has a brother whose girlfriend has been sleeping with someone at Blizzard in an attempt to get him on the Beta list. She said that there is a typo on the Beta page and signup really isn't until the January 9th.

That's right, as a service to all of my fellow /.ers I am passing on this invaluable piece of information. So none of you should waste your precious time trying to register on the 7th. Spend that day downloading patches to your favorite OS, or go see LOTR for the 12th time. Don't go anywhere near the Blizzard site.

I appreciate... uh, I mean Blizzard appreciates your support.

Re:Beta Period Moved! by ender-iii · 2002-01-02 08:42 · Score: 1

I've heard the same thing from an anonymous source.

--
ender-iii
Re:Beta Period Moved! by tswinzig · 2002-01-02 09:33 · Score: 3, Funny

I know a guy who has a brother whose girlfriend has been sleeping with someone at Blizzard in an attempt to get him on the Beta list. She said that there is a typo on the Beta page and signup really isn't until the January 9th.

I find this VERY hard to believe!

I mean, you actually know someone that has a girlfriend? Yeah, whatever...

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:Beta Period Moved! by wo1verin3 · 2002-01-02 10:01 · Score: 1

Actually the information in regards to the beta being moved is totally accurate. I heard from the president of Toshiba which heard from the president of Blizzard while they were hanging out a local gentlemans club.
Re:Beta Period Moved! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 16:00 · Score: 0

You mean the "CEO" of Blizzard and the "CEO" of Toshiba?
Re:Beta Period Moved! by Galvatron · 2002-01-03 06:00 · Score: 1

No no, he know's someone whose *brother* has a girlfriend.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD

Real-time strategy or RPG? by Paladeen · 2002-01-02 08:40 · Score: 1

From what I've seen and heard in regard to Warcraft 3, they seem to be focusing on making it some kind of bastardization between a RPG and a RTS (real time strategy). I sure hope they don't mess it up. The two sure don't sound like they mix well

To be perfectly honest, I'd have preferred to get Starcraft 2 instead. Starcraft was an epic masterpiece of a game, the only game I've spent more time playing than I have reading Slashdot. =)

Re:Real-time strategy or RPG? by hkmwbz · 2002-01-03 05:37 · Score: 1

"From what I've seen and heard in regard to Warcraft 3, they seem to be focusing on making it some kind of bastardization between a RPG and a RTS (real time strategy). I sure hope they don't mess it up. The two sure don't sound like they mix well"
That's a bit hard to guess before you have actually tried it, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, Blizzard appeared to agree with you, since they toned down the RPG part and focused more on standard RTS elements. They still do have RPG'ish features, though, like Heroes, that can gain levels and power, and act like leaders to your troops. You can also find neutral characters on the various levels, and even go treasure hunting.
But the first version of WC3 was a lot more focused on RPG - even the camera was completely different. You couldn't move it freely, as it was tied to the Hero you were using at the moment. After experimenting with this, Blizzard released the camera and moved it to a more "overhead" perspective - which makes it look more of a standard RTS again.
This actually shows why Blizzard have an excellent "track record" in games. Every game has been a winner. They aren't afraid to redo something if it doesn't work.
Let's hope they can deliver with WC3 as well... I personally have confidence in the company. I still play Starcraft! Now that's a classic. (And yes, I wish they would do SC2, but sadly, they have stated that there are no plans for that at the moment.)

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Errr... by SomeOtherGuy · 2002-01-02 08:46 · Score: 2

Just when I was getting excited to reclaim those 7 gigs that I have Win 98 installed on....Someone had to remind me that someday there is going to be another Warcraft. This folks is the type of thing Linux needs to "make it" on the desktop. Right now we have 15 office suites that introduce 400 new file formats and 20+ games that they have ported from the cut-out bin. Can you imagine if you could get Blizzard games for Linux on the day of release....That would be a good day.

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

System requirements by e-Motion · 2002-01-02 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative

"However, now that they have added 3D chip features, Warcraft III will probably need either a decent video card (Geforce or greater) and/or a relatively fast processor (600-700 Mhz+). Of course, these are guesses."

The system requirements are listed in the FAQ (http://www.blizzard.com/war3/faq/faq-features.sht ml):

"What will the system requirements be?
It is important to us to make our games playable on as broad a range of machines as possible, and we do not see WarCraft III as an exception. We are planning on having a requirement of a PIII 400 system with a 3D accelerator card and 64megs of RAM. Currently, we are working on game performance and should be able to give more concrete information soon."

Since they are requiring only 400 Mhz and 64 MB of RAM, they most likely will not require a Geforce+ card to run this. That's a relief for me! Whew!

Re:System requirements by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:41 · Score: 0

You could go pick up an original Geforce for about $20 now, don't be cheap....

Damn you Slashdot!!! by Sheik+Yerboutii · 2002-01-02 08:52 · Score: 1

I was hoping that this little nugget of information would stay quiet so i'd be
sure to be one of the ones picked...

now i've got to contend with thousands of
other fans vying for one of the 5,000 beta
testor spots

I got one of the spots in the Diablo 2
stress test, it was so cool :)

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by sharkey · 2002-01-02 08:58 · Score: 2

Luke:

No, just "Luke"

You'll find I'm full of surprises

Noooo!!!

Z-Z-Z-Z-ZAP!!! "Ouch!"

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Time correction for sign-ups by paranoidia · 2002-01-02 09:00 · Score: 2, Troll

Let me be the first to point out that the signup times are NOT the ones posted on the front page. The time are really from January 17th at 11:00 p.m (GMT -8) to January 18th at 11:00 p.m (GMT -8). So don't even try on the posted 7th, because nothing will come of it. Don't try. Please.

Re:Time correction for sign-ups by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 12:56 · Score: 0

NOTE TO MODS: This guy is joking. You should be modding him Funny or Redundant (a similar joke already got +5 Funny), not Informative.
Re:Time correction for sign-ups by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 13:48 · Score: 0

Moderators, this is meant as a joke, please rate it as such so nobody is going to get kind of pissed for being ten days late for signing up...!
Re:Time correction for sign-ups by GrandCow · 2002-01-02 15:20 · Score: 1

Who modded this up as informative???

Jeeze... look just a bit above this (with a threshold of 3) and you'll see the same post, but instead of the date being the 17th it's the 9th. Who actually believed this enough to mod it up as informative?

Are we still drunk from New Years?

--
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson

Free Gruntz!?!?!?!!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:00 · Score: 0

I can't wait to make and play a FREE GRUNTS map in WCIII !!!!

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by WillSeattle · 2002-01-02 09:01 · Score: 1

... aspect of WC II.

Clicking on a character multiple times of course!

I always liked that the sheep go "Baa! Ram! Ewe!" myself. A nice touch.

If I were to look for an additional feature, it would be someway of telling someone at the back of a group (like archers) to stay in the back, instead of racing ahead of the slow armored folk who are protecting them. I lose more heroes that way ...

-

--
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?

Warcraft III faq - Why NOT a Linux version? by WillSeattle · 2002-01-02 09:04 · Score: 1

Hey, if I can buy a Linux edition of The Sims, why not Warcraft III? Just make it WineX compatible and I'll pay for the game ....

-

--
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by wo1verin3 · 2002-01-02 09:06 · Score: 1

Austin...I am your father.
Really?
No, not really, I have nothing to back that up with
* AustinP has quit IRC (Ping Timeout: 180 seconds)

slouken works for blizzard doesn't he? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:09 · Score: 0

iirc, Sam works for blizzard now, and after searching for some technical details about wc3 all I could really find out was that the game can use OpenGL or Direct3D. Now, I'm just a young guy who wants to be a game developer, but wouldn't it make sense for them to use SDL? They have Sam working for them, and they plan on doing a MacOS X port, so why not if the engine is going to support OpenGL anyhow? Then they could just compile binaries for dozens of platforms... this adds more value to the game imo!! Blizzard seems like they know what they are doing, but is it just me that thinks this is the most logical plan for game developers nowadays? A guy like Sam who knows what he's doing should cut down on multiplatform development costs, so wouldn't this make it a more profitable choice as well?

Sometimes it seems like Bill has the whole world in his pocket.

Warcraft 3 Now by Samus · 2002-01-02 09:09 · Score: 1

The one game that I've stumbled upon lately is Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns. While not set in the world of aziroth its the type of game war3 should have been now. Not high on the graphic glitz but definately a great game to play. Heh the music kind of reminds me of the war2. Everything else is more or less a nice evolution of the war2 genre with a slightly different world. Download the demo from loki or from the kohan site itself. P.S. I'm not affiliated with either of the companies. I'm just someone who got his warcraft 3 fix from a different source early.

--
In Republican America phones tap you.

Re:What? by DickPhallus · 2002-01-02 09:10 · Score: 1

Never seen seinfled eh? I won't bother explaining the episode to you then...

--

--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.

AWWW by Fembot · 2002-01-02 09:12 · Score: 0

there only taking signups in US/canada, how insainly iritating

well, if you use winex... you won't need to reboot by Mysticalfruit · 2002-01-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Well, if it works under transgaming's winex, then no reboot will be nessisary!

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.

US IMPERIALISM AT ITS FINEST -nt by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 09:26 · Score: 0

8P

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by sharkey · 2002-01-02 09:30 · Score: 2

Are you ready for...Mini-Austin!

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Re:I have a few ideas for improving beta testing.. by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:32 · Score: 1

Blizzard does not require you to sign an NDA for their beta tests.

Adding text waiting for the 20 seconds to pass... fuck me for typing fast!

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

Sienfeld reference by Derek · 2002-01-02 09:38 · Score: 2

It is a reference to the TV sitcom "Sienfeld". I will attempt to explain it, but it could never make it as funny as the original.

Elaine uses the sponge as her preferred method of birth control. There is a shortage of sponges, so she (and all women in that episode) start using very strict criteria to determine if a man is "sponge worthy".

I know it doesn't sound very funny now, but it made a great sub-plot.

-Derek

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:44 · Score: 1

In this Warcraft, if you select a group of units and tell them to move they will only move at the speed of its slowest member.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

RPG and RTS do work well together... by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 09:48 · Score: 1

Go out and purchase "Sacrifice". It is an RTS game where you have a definite character. You are a wizard who can summon creatures to fight other wizards. You will be running around in the middle of the battle commanding your creatures and casting spells. You can even be killed, but usually you come back to life rather soon. (Only when you have lost do you not come back to life.)

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

Re:RPG and RTS do work well together... by DRO0 · 2002-01-02 10:36 · Score: 1

IIRC, Sacrifice is one of the games featured in the Transgaming screenshots, but does it actually work well in WineX? I saw Sacrifice in Fry's for $9.99 and if it worked in Wine I'd maybe give it a shot.
Re:RPG and RTS do work well together... by TheOnlyCoolTim · 2002-01-02 15:34 · Score: 1

According to Transgaming:
Full version and demo both work perfectly, except for network play. Full version requries 'patch 3' in order to avoid copy protection issues.
Patch 3 is referring to the the third patch for Sacrifice. Even without multiplayer it is worth $10. Everything in the screenshot looks fine to me. Go purchase it, or try the demo first.

Tim

--
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.

Starcraft/Brood War characters know it's a game... by devphil · 2002-01-02 10:02 · Score: 3, Funny

*click*
"This is NOT "Warcraft In Space"!"
*click*
"It's much more sophisticated!"
*click*
"I KNOW it's not in 3-D!"

--
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)

Should be okay. by nobodyman · 2002-01-02 10:05 · Score: 1

I played a demo of wc3 at E3 last year and the year before that. Don't know if it was a top of the line machine last year, but even if it was.. how top end would that be now?

Re:I have a few ideas for improving beta testing.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 10:09 · Score: 0

if you want to fix bugs in W3, send blizzard your resume. The ratio of open source / closed source games should tell you how successful that development model is.

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Quizme2000 · 2002-01-02 10:10 · Score: 3, Informative

A little offtopic but..The sound editor for WCII was fun for loading monty python bites for my extremely addicted frat brother in college. He would camp out in front of my computer almost everynight for hours, evuntally I "crashed..wink..wink.." my computer and lost the only copy of the game I had. The next day he bought another copy from Best Buy. Also If you didn't know you can play the WCII CD in the cd player and hear the background music.

--
"Get them before they get....

This doesn't look like... by ChaoticCoyote · 2002-01-02 10:13 · Score: 2

...something Bob or Enzo might play. ;)

--
All about me

I'm sorry but... by sofar · 2002-01-02 10:15 · Score: 1

This really pisses me off. Why?

Here's another good example of how the US entertainment industry has a monopolistic grip on the industry.

Why would they only allow US and Canada residents to participate? Just for ease? Well Europe is a well developed area nowadays! We play games! And what about Japan? or Australia? Come on!

Seems like another company developes games for US citizens and not for anyone outside of it. Hold on, let me guess, It's gonna be released 6 months later in Europe anyway!!! gee guys!

Any idea's why Europeans have their dvd players cr4ck3d and playstations modified?

All you US residents have no idea how much the US entertainment industry is terrorizing the rest of the world when it comes to games and movies!

I can only wish I can get the legal version of this game like anyone else, not having to wait for it to become obsolete and without my opponents (mostly US) to be at the same level of experience with the game as me. But lemme guess: they got it months before I did and already know all there is to it and I'm just starting at it...

See! You guys DO cheat on gaming!!!

Re:I'm sorry but... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 11:17 · Score: 0

If you don't like the U.S. stranglehold, then form a game company in YOUR country and make good games.
Re:I'm sorry but... by AHumbleOpinion · 2002-01-02 11:18 · Score: 1

Here's another good example of how the US entertainment industry has a monopolistic grip on the industry

Blizzard is part of Vivendi Universal, that makes them French not U.S. :-)

Seems like another company developes games for US citizens and not for anyone outside of it. Hold on, let me guess, It's gonna be released 6 months later in Europe anyway!!! gee guys!

Blizzard's last title, Diablo II, was a simultaneous international release with respect to Western Europe. IIRC English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Polish came a few months later.
Re:I'm sorry but... by HalfFlat · 2002-01-02 13:55 · Score: 2

A significant problem with this sort of beta testing procedure is that other countries are likely to get shafted on the network play aspect.

If the only reasonable network play is going to be over the Battle.Net servers, and they are only testing the game with people who live on the same continent as the best connected servers, then clearly they won't be examining the game's performance under higher latency conditions.

Unless they pop well-connected Battle.Net servers all over the world - and they certainly did not for Diablo II - then they are effectively saying they just don't care about their foreign market.

Which is probably true, just not very pleasant.
Re:I'm sorry but... by KjartMan · 2002-01-02 23:09 · Score: 1

Eve-Online is taking beta applicants from all over the world and it looks damn schweet too.
Re:I'm sorry but... by PMAvers · 2002-01-03 09:49 · Score: 1

I don't think it's that, but from more of a legal standpoint. Think NDA's. Plus, it's a lot cheaper shipping inside of the US and Canada than it is for them to ship overseas.
Re:I'm sorry but... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-03 10:23 · Score: 0

Well, what do you plan on doing about it?

Nothing you say?

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 10:16 · Score: 0

If I were to look for an additional feature, it would be someway of telling someone at the back of a group (like archers) to stay in the back, instead of racing ahead of the slow armored folk who are protecting them. I lose more heroes that way ...

Age Of Empires II has smart formations like that (you can choose among 3 or 4 different formations). Perhaps you could suggest (or even implement) that feature for FreeCraft.

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by WillSeattle · 2002-01-02 10:29 · Score: 1

In this Warcraft, if you select a group of units and tell them to move they will only move at the speed of its slowest member.

Of course, this could be bad, if they ever implement the "wounded walk slower" rule.

Then you'd see people try not to create groups that are too big.

Be nice if they avoided obstacles better - in I and II they meet a narrow corridor and split up in slightly silly ways. It's worse in Starcraft - there I get drones and all trapped trying to go left, right, left, right - all to escape from placing a build.

-

--
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?

Warcarft III - LotR redux? by WillSeattle · 2002-01-02 10:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Hmm. I looked at the screens and the first thing I thought was - someone's been reading too much Lord of the Rings recently.

I mean, they added:
magical cloaks
rings
spell books

Oh, yeah.

Now if I could just locate that nice ring I got for my birthday present ...

-

--
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?

Re:Warcarft III - LotR redux? by mcb · 2002-01-03 15:06 · Score: 1

I don't remember there being spell books in LOTR.

MacOS and MacOS X by AHumbleOpinion · 2002-01-02 10:55 · Score: 1

War3 is supposed to ship simultaneously for Win32, MacOS, and MacOS X. Screen shots of War3 running under MacOS X were shown last May immediately after War3 was publically shown at E3 2001. Win32 was used at E3.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?Artic leID=2943

So Blizzard hates me... by BLiP2 · 2002-01-02 11:11 · Score: 0

Well this sucks, I have dental surgery on the 7th, and then I'm slated to be full of heavy duty pain killers after that.

Why Blizzard, why?!?!

--
Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!

yes by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-02 11:52 · Score: 0

+-----------+ |FAIRHAVEN| |HOUSE| |*OF*| |PIZZA| +-----------+ | | A /\ /\ CallNow! (508)994-0000

hawe fasdoifj asdoifj asodifjas dofiasj dfoiasjd fposaidfja sdoifjas dofijas dpfoiasj dfoaisjdf aosifj a duifaj sdfoiusj dfoisdjf asoidfj asodifj asdoifja sdofija sodifjasdif jasd

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by blazin · 2002-01-02 11:57 · Score: 2

I always liked that the sheep go "Baa! Ram! Ewe!" myself. A nice touch.

You must have given up too soon. If you continue clicking the sheep (or seals or whatever the other maps' animals were) they will eventually explode.

Obviously... by Gandalf_007 · 2002-01-02 11:57 · Score: 1

C'mon, the whole WarCraft thing *is* based, at least indirectly, on LotR. You have Orcs, Trolls, Dwarves, Elves, etc...

And seriously, when I saw LotR, whenever Gimli spoke I was half-expecting him to say "Ay, laddie!" a la the Dwarven Demolition Sqaud of WCII.

--

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

On a related note ... (MacOS X & Blizzard game by Arnulf · 2002-01-02 12:08 · Score: 1

As far as I know W3 will be OSX ready. (Correct me if I'm wrong here)

Anyway - what about a carbonized version of Warcraft II? Like they did for Starcraft? That would be nice. Or (tada) a carbonized version of Diablo II? That would be really nice!

And, refering to this, is there a remedy for the Ati Rave problems? The last update (for 9.2) didn't change a thing. The game has still frequent little pauses in hardware accelerated mode on my otherwise freshly set up iMac.

Any Ati driver for Mac developers reading this?

Oh well, I still have D2 installed on my PC...

-Arnulf

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Goldberg's+Pants · 2002-01-02 12:45 · Score: 1

You missed the best one of all. The starting character for humans in WC1. "Why do you keep touching me?"

The Orc was pretty cool too. "Stop poking me!"

In Starcraft, Kerrigan was cool. "Doesn't take a telepath to know what you're thinking." And the one unit that sounds like Mr. Burns.

Blizzards games by crisco · 2002-01-02 12:46 · Score: 2

Blizzard has a history of making games that don't need the latest in processor / vid card to run. I ran the beta and release of Diablo II (spring / summer 2000) on my P200 / 64MB / Voodoo2 card. That was below minimum requirements. DII did have some compatibility problems that left people with much faster computers with bad framerates and other problems, but that isn't exactly a performance problem. IIRC Starcraft asked for a 75 MHz or 90 MHz Pentium in late spring of '97. That was about the same time the Pentium II was coming on the market. And indeed, Starcraft played well on the P90 we had at work. Didn't play the original Diablo when it came out (early '96?), I think that required a Pentium. That may have pushed the requirements a bit. Warcraft II? Don't remember the requirements, probably any 486 would do well with it. It did get choppy if you had all 8 players maxed out to the population limit and only 8MB of memory but that was pretty rare, smaller games performed just fine. Warcraft I? Again, probably a decent 386 would handle it OK. That was a while ago... I think Blizzard has done a great job of releasing games that perform decently on 2 year old hardware. While a PII 400 is huge compared to its predecessor, it isn't much compared to a new 'budget' computer today.

--

Bleh!

Liars! by matthewg · 2002-01-02 15:33 · Score: 2

From the WC3 FAQ:

When is the beta?
We honestly can't say for sure yet.

Gee, Thanks! by llzackll · 2002-01-02 15:43 · Score: 1

whoever posted this... You've just decreased my chances of getting a beta =[

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Rudeboy777 · 2002-01-02 16:59 · Score: 1

Special note for the Warcraft-obsessed only: The last track on the War2 CD is a cool disco song not heard in-game. Some of the game sounds are sampled in (like the footman saying "why do you keep touching me?")

--

From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Andrewkov · 2002-01-03 03:04 · Score: 1

You like poking sheep, huh?

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by dfenstrate · 2002-01-03 04:48 · Score: 1

it's in the game- you need to put in a cheat code to hear it. the code escapes me but I'm sure you can find it on blizzards site.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by chaos4ever · 2002-01-03 08:23 · Score: 1

you forgot the human ships (my personal favorite):

"Stop rocking the boat."

"You're making me seasick"

*hurling sound*

How many will apply? by Tanaraus · 2002-01-03 10:21 · Score: 1

I wonder how many people are going to apply to this? I mean last time that they initiated a relatively closed beta test (1000 testers for d2) they had something like 500,000 applicants! This time they've gotten smarter I guess and are only doing it for 24 hours. Might cut down on the multiple applications by the same ppl and maybe only ppl who watch their website closer will apply. Still, I'm betting that there will be over 500,000 people applying once again (in 24 hours!) Perhaps their server will get swamped since they have reduced the signup period.

Oh well, I guess we will have to see. I for one am definately going to cross my fingers and go for it.

-Sanity is not statistical

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by egburr · 2002-01-03 11:22 · Score: 1

I like how Age of Empires provides an option for one computer to host a game and all others can connect to it directly by IP address instead of forcing you to rely on an always-overloaded external server like BattleNet.

--

Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Re:Starcraft/Brood War characters know it's a game by Arnulf · 2002-01-04 05:14 · Score: 1

Let me guess: Artanis?

(Coincidentally the name is Sinatra spelled backwards ... Honni soit qui mal y ponse)

-Arnulf

Re:I certainly hope they kept the most important . by Arnulf · 2002-01-04 05:25 · Score: 1

The cheat code is "disco" (w/out the quotes)

Anyway, as far as I remember, this track was on the W2 expansion cd "Beyond The Dark Portal" only. Unfortunately Blizzard stopped making audio tracks on game cds since they released Starcraft. This also applies for the Battle.net edition of W2. My original no-part-of-a-collection W2 cd is a real treasure to me.

"Do that again and you'll pull back a stump!"

-Arnulf

Re:I have a few ideas for improving beta testing.. by Quasar1999 · 2002-01-04 13:04 · Score: 2

if you want to fix bugs in W3, send blizzard your resume. The ratio of open source / closed source games should tell you how successful that development model is.

If I send Blizzard my resume, then I would end up working for THEM, hence defeating the purpose.

The reason I suggested letting us (the testers) fix the bugs is because Blizzard will rate most of them as low priority, or simply overlook them. As a tester, I can concentrate on fixing one issue. OTOH if I worked for Blizzard, they would then tell me which bugs I could and couldn't fix, letting them slip through...

I do however agree that very few companies have had success with open source game dev... but it could happen...

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

So today's the day ... where's the site? by ArmorFiend · 2002-01-07 13:06 · Score: 1

Anyone else notice that www.blizzard.com seems to have dropped off the net?

Macintosh update by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-09 06:31 · Score: 0

From the new beta faq,

"Will there be a Mac version of the beta available?
No, there will not be a Mac version of the beta. However, we currently plan to ship a Macintosh version of Warcraft® III simultaneously with the PC version."

Slashdot Mirror

Beta Sign-Ups for WarCraft III

191 comments