Slashdot Mirror


Warcraft III Expansion

Ultra Magnus writes "Looks like Blizzard is releasing an expansion pack to WC3. I've always been pleased with their expansions before, so I hope this lives up to expectations."

18 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Bahhh! by motorsabbath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bah! Brood War was (is) one of the greatest games I've ever played. Diablo II pretty much sucked and was a lousy follow-up to a great game (chop-chop-chop). Warcraft III is even worse. Bad graphics, boring gameplay, no sense of humor. Which is too bad because Warcraft II *is* the greatest game I've ever played.

    Neverwinter Nights kicks the s**t out of War3, by a light year. I know, they're not the same game type, but War III sucks. Sorry.

    Hope Blizz get's it right next time. This is 2 strikes in a row. Not that I'll be playing the next Blizz game on my Mac if M$ buys them anyways...

    Can;t wait for the penguin client for NWN!

    --
    The heat from below can burn your eyes out
    1. Re:Bahhh! by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is it two strikes in a row? They are a company with a business model designed to generate revenue; their games do so very successfully. So, we have: 1.) Create game. 2.) People love/buy game. 3.) Profit. Because you (personally) don't like the game, does not mean (for them, or anyone else) that the game is a failure, as is proven conclusively through sales. Obviously, since they've sold many, many copies.

  2. Viva la Bnetd! by BlackGriffen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.bnetd.org/

    BG

  3. ...is for you to shut up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
  4. Re:Starcraft by numark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's Vivendi :) And Blizzard doesn't trade on the stock market, being a subsidiary of Vivendi. However, I do agree with what you say, that Starcraft 2 will probably never be, just because of the horrendous finances at Vivendi and the fact that they're focusing on Warcraft more now. Add to that the fact that they may be bought by Microsoft, and Starcraft 2 is very unlikely.

    --
    Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
  5. Re:Starcraft by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Add to that the fact that they may be bought by Microsoft, and Starcraft 2 is very unlikely.

    I'm not following here. Why would being acquired by Microsoft keep Blizzard from making Starcraft 2? In fact, I would think that would guarantee that Startcraft 2 would be made. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they're not stupid.

  6. If Blizzard is thinking SC ... by webdevcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Blizzard is trying to do to Warcraft III, what BroodWar did yo Starcraft ... Good Luck. They are missing their time as Warcraft III did little to innovate unlike SC. For that reason, it may just be better to tap into the SC users and release something good, like a well designed SC2 :)

  7. Re:But, we're boycotting WC3 this week, right? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Or am I off on the weekly schedule? Because I could swear this was the week we're upset over the DMCA server stuff."

    I know you're being funny, but the truth is that the market needs AAA games. Boycotting Blizzard would do more harm than good. (Besides, it's Vivendi you're after..)

  8. Disappointed by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I bought WC3 on the first day of its release. A huge starcraft fan, I couldn't imagine it could have been bad. I played WC3 nonstop for weeks in a row, and I didn't like it nearly as much as StarCraft. "That's OK," I thought, "it's just because I haven't played it as much as StarCraft."

    Well, I slowly came to the realization that I didn't like the game very much. It was just boring. I got the feeling that part of the reason that StarCraft was so fun was because you could be creative and play strategies that the developers hadn't intended. Unfortunately, they must have thought that was a bad thing, because in WC3, they capped the unit limit much lower and added the annoying concept of "upkeep". Now, every game is the same (you have like two or three strategy options), and if one of your team's partners is a bad player or just uncooperative, you're screwed.

    I'll buy the expansion. I hope it turns my opinion of the game around. I really *want* to like WC3. If it's even half as good as SC, it should give me limitless hours of entertainment.

    --
    ...just my 2 gil.
    1. Re:Disappointed by Bisifiniti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, if you don't like getting screwed over in Random Team, play Solo. See, the idea of upkeep is to keep the Starcraft mentality of "max out my base with photon cannons and get carriers". Now, you can't just sit there with a bigass army behind 17 rows of cannons and pump carriers from 18 stargates. You have to think. Less units = more management. You don't just pump units and hope you win, you have to target units. It's a lot more thinking. And, I think, a lot more fun. Anyway, if you play solo up to about level 13, then play Random Team and you'll be playing with other higher-level guys.

  9. Hrmm... by smasherbob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's take a look here:

    One new Hero per race, each possessing powerful spells and magical abilities specifically designed to enhance each race

    A host of new units, each equipped with new abilities and spells, giving players the opportunity to create diverse strategic and tactical forms of combat

    3 new tilesets featuring extraordinary new lands to explore, complete with numerous creeps and critters to wage war upon

    Player-built shops, unique for each race, equipped with items carefully designed to improve and aid the units of every race

    Neutral buildings, which will provide players with numerous new upgrades, items and abilities

    Neutral Heroes, available for recruitment by all players, that can supplement and strengthen a player's army with all new spells and abilities

    An advanced world editor that allows players to create their own custom campaigns, complete with cut-scenes and voiceovers

    Many new multiplayer maps

    Expanded multiplayer options over Battle.net® including multiple new game types, clan and tournament support.

    Well, I'm dissapointed that the Burning Legion didn't somehow worm their way into the expansion as a playable race, buuuut... it's nice that there will be new clan features. That's something I've always wondered about - in all the FPS and RTS and RPGs and yada yada, why the heck are clans always an out-of-game feature? You'd think by now that game developers would have gotten wind of the fact that gamers like to group together. Why not give them options to solidify that in-game?
  10. Re:Starcraft2 and the 200 cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Damn that was annoying is Warcraft 3, How the Fuck did they think you could defend a Base AND field a field an army with a unit cap that worked out to about 20-25 units. with 8 or so taken up by peons = you can't built shit.

  11. Re:Starcraft by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft's business model for games tends more toward MSN Gaming Zone and first-person shooters.

    Care to explain the Age of Empires franchise? Or the * Simulator games? (Flight Sim, Combat Flight Sim, Train Sim) Come to think of it, the only FPS game I can think of off hand from Microsoft is Halo. Mech Assault and the Mechwarrior games may count, though the former is third-person and the latter is more of a sim.


    It's unlikely Battle.net would last long, as people are converted over to MSN.

    I don't see this as being a bad thing. Battle.net has had more than its share of problems, and the only reason I see for keeping it around would be for the already-existing games that use it. Starcraft 2 could and should use a different model. But I guess that's just my own opinion.


    It would also increase the likelihood that the PC version of Starcraft 2 would be delayed or nonexistant, and certainly not the same as if Blizzard made it themselves.

    I'm not sure what you're using as the basis for your assumptions here, but I'm not sure it really jives with what MGS has done. Look at Halo -- Bungie was working on it for quite a long time, and probably would've been even longer had they not been acquired by Microsoft and given the hard and fast ship date of "by XBox launch". And as for it not being the same as if Blizzard made it, who do you think would do the development? If Microsoft buys out Vivendi's game division (still unconfirmed rumor), they would not just be buying the IP. They'd be buying the development studios themselves. In other words, Blizzard would still be making the game, it would just be published by someone else (Microsoft).

  12. Well... by Snaller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somebody has made a custom map called "Bomb bin laden", so there might :)

    After all the most played WC3 games on BattleNet seems to be custom games (ie, people make maps which not like regular games, different rules, units etc)

    I just checked BattleNet:

    Number of Starcraft games being played: 10967

    Number of Warcraft III games being played: 4925


    Perhaps that should tell them something ;)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  13. Re:With a Story by Squideye · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't Starcraft look like an "ending" ending? *Spoilers* Tassadar crashed the Gantrithor, blew up the Overmind? Sounds comparatively final to me, but you know, I could be insane.

    No, I think that there's always room for stories to continue. Firstly, "World of Warcraft" the MMORPG is continuing after WC3 anyway. Secondly, just because the Burning Legion is all hosed, that doesn't mean that a) The Undead (Arthas!), b) The Orcs (Thrall!) c) The Humans (Jaina!) or d) The Night Elves (Furion! Illidan!) are completely gone. There's lots of potential for each of these stories to continue.

    Remember that sometimes the best stories are made not from world-beating threats, but from character interactions.

  14. Re:No, boycotting Blizzard was illogical by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Warcraft 3 is less fighting your enemy, and more powering up on NPC monsters so you have no chance of losing when you run across your enemy."

    Yeah it's definitely got a more of an RPG feel to it. That's one of the reasons I'm a Blizzard follower, they don't mind changing the formula. I was disappointed with some of the C&C sequals that came out. Westwood added some stuff to it, but it really didn't seem so different that expansion packs couldn't have covered it.

    I might be over-stating WC3 a bit, I haven't played it a whole lot yet. (Figures I get it about the same time I get GTA 3...)

  15. The same with SimCity 4 by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did you know they had 4-lane roads originally in SimCity 4 before release (there were screenshots)? Also, notice you can't edit region sizes in-game? And so on and so on...obviously, EA is holding out for an expansion pack, like they overdid with The Sims. I am so sick of expansion packs, to be honest. They were neat and exciting in the 90s; for instance, the one put out for WarCraft II where you went to the Orc homeworld. But it's become too much of a routine now to use expansion packs as a way to IMPROVE the game as it should have been instead of simply adding on to it.

  16. Re:I'm not too excited by cap'n+foolsy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    actually, since the Undead are the hardest race to play (their "cheese" tactics are pretty easy to counter), playing well with the Undead means that you generally play well with all the other races. I personally go for 3 heroes early in the game, all of them with direct-damage spells (Carrion Swarm, Death Coil, and Frost Nova). sure, i may be at a disadvantage with regards to units, but that's nothing a few well-placed spells and clever micromanaging can't solve. enemy heroes go down pretty quickly after they've been hit by three offensive spells.

    the lynchpin of the whole operation is a high-level dread lord - carrion swarm and vampiric aura mean he can deal out damage to whole groups of enemies, and heal his own army without any mana cost. cool, eh? the death knight just sits back and keeps on casting death coil at any units that are damaged. i've taken out 3 armies at once with my "puny" army of 12 ghouls and 3 heroes. which just goes to show how deep Warcraft III's gameplay is - with enough practice, and dedication, even seemingly overwhelming odds can be surmounted.

    --
    It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away