Well, the biggest over-hyped game I played so far has been Dungeon Siege. I also wouldn't call three years in development exactly 'rushed to the market'. The game feels complete to me, the races could use some more tweaking, but I'm guessing that in the years to follow patches will follow to smooth things out. (By tweaking I am not taking away from the finished feel. The races units all have their roles laid out for them, some minor exp improvements and balance issues should resolve the remainder. (i.e: StarFall, or Dispel Magic)
First off, this is WarCraftIII, not StarCraftII. The units are supposed to be similar in function, not radically different. If you were expecting completely different races I'd suggest waiting until 2011 when StarCraftII will most likely be out.
Um, thank goodness for that. What did you want from the humans? Space Marines? Siege Tanks? lol. Since the game is based after a fantasy setting, and since it tries to follow some sort of story line the unit progression would need to be somewhat similar.
The concept is the same, however again, the units are very similar to each other in regards to tech level and purpose, a footman = grunt = ghoul, with various unique abilities to differ their function. The undead can not be the zerg in this case, and are not from playing them.
lol!!! Now this I HAVE to see you accomplish with a lone-footman. Make a re-play file of your game with your lone footman, I'm very eager to see it.
WarCraf2 Graphics. Besides, this graphics engine couldn't hold a candle to other graphics engines today *cough*Quake3*cough*. The texture quality is very high though and there didn't seem to be any low frame rate issues.>
Odd, I've found that the cartoonish animations and unit movement to be fluid and pleasant. Reminds me of Ssacrifice. The unit portaits are by far better than others I have seen for any RTS out there.
As would I, a bit too ambient though.
Er... you HAVE watched the cut scenes in WarCraftIII right? It doesn't sound like you have. They are up to Blizzard's standards. I see nothing wrong with the lack of placed cut-scenes either, but others will disagree. I'd rather have scenes explaining that which the game can not, than every 2 games interrupted with fluff. (Nice looking fluff, but fluff all the same.)
To me, it's Blizzard showing off the game engine, which they seem to have a wonderful job at using btw. The cities are eye pleasing, landscape is believable, and voices done well.
Riiiiggghhttt. Well first off there were NO SEA UNITS OF ANY KIND in WarCraftI. (Perhaps you never played WarcraftI, or this game I am beginning to believe.) In WarCraftII you could build land units whenever you wished, but sea units only for water maps. StarCraft did not possess sea units either, I see no reason for their inclusion in this game. If you want to add sea units, I would recommend learning how to code and using the WorldEditor which can supposedly allow you to do anything you wish with the game.
See the above.
Um, see the above. The emphasis on this game was not base-building, but combat/skirmishes. Um, I wouldn't know why you're examining why mechanical units burn gold. Do you question why knights magically pop out of barracks, or why you know how much gold is in each mine exactly?
Er, as I have not yet played the custom games, I can not argue.
Er, if you don't like the game return it for a refund and save for Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2003, or some other game. No one is forcing you to play this game. If you pee on Blizzards doorstep you'll be arrested btw, so I wouldn't do that.
Greetings there Bonch.
I can kinda follow you on the new feel for the game myself. If you can recall from the days of old, this game was always going to be a "mixture" of RPG and RTS combined, originally something along the lings of what Shiny's Sacrifice (sp?) was. (Hero follow view, hero's regenerate in rown if killed, units must be linked to the hero, etc.)
During the evolution of the game Blizzard backed away from such a change and stuck with the tried-and-true method, but kept some of the RPG elements around to differ the game from it's precessor somewhat. In a way, what you said "Hey, we'll mix our two biggest money-makers to make a mutant third one" is correct in that StarCraft was a RTS and DiabloII was a RPG. WarCraftIII was designed to be as such. It does not make it a bad game though, I myself enjoy the side quests and RPG features the game has, you don't. Hey, to each their own.
As for the graphics, I always liked the cartoony look. Sacrifice (sp?) was very cartoony, and a great game all the same. WarCraftIII is very cartoony as well - something I like. Graphics have never made the game however, 3D or not. Heh, I still play commodore 64 games, and the original Quest for Glorys (Sierra). (Go EGA!)
I guess the storyline wasn't to your liking either. Heh heh, I liked it very much, much more complex than the tedium of "side A vs. side B" scenario. Again, to each their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the biggest over-hyped game I played so far has been Dungeon Siege. I also wouldn't call three years in development exactly 'rushed to the market'. The game feels complete to me, the races could use some more tweaking, but I'm guessing that in the years to follow patches will follow to smooth things out. (By tweaking I am not taking away from the finished feel. The races units all have their roles laid out for them, some minor exp improvements and balance issues should resolve the remainder. (i.e: StarFall, or Dispel Magic) First off, this is WarCraftIII, not StarCraftII. The units are supposed to be similar in function, not radically different. If you were expecting completely different races I'd suggest waiting until 2011 when StarCraftII will most likely be out. Um, thank goodness for that. What did you want from the humans? Space Marines? Siege Tanks? lol. Since the game is based after a fantasy setting, and since it tries to follow some sort of story line the unit progression would need to be somewhat similar. The concept is the same, however again, the units are very similar to each other in regards to tech level and purpose, a footman = grunt = ghoul, with various unique abilities to differ their function. The undead can not be the zerg in this case, and are not from playing them. lol!!! Now this I HAVE to see you accomplish with a lone-footman. Make a re-play file of your game with your lone footman, I'm very eager to see it. WarCraf2 Graphics. Besides, this graphics engine couldn't hold a candle to other graphics engines today *cough*Quake3*cough*. The texture quality is very high though and there didn't seem to be any low frame rate issues.> Odd, I've found that the cartoonish animations and unit movement to be fluid and pleasant. Reminds me of Ssacrifice. The unit portaits are by far better than others I have seen for any RTS out there. As would I, a bit too ambient though. Er... you HAVE watched the cut scenes in WarCraftIII right? It doesn't sound like you have. They are up to Blizzard's standards. I see nothing wrong with the lack of placed cut-scenes either, but others will disagree. I'd rather have scenes explaining that which the game can not, than every 2 games interrupted with fluff. (Nice looking fluff, but fluff all the same.) To me, it's Blizzard showing off the game engine, which they seem to have a wonderful job at using btw. The cities are eye pleasing, landscape is believable, and voices done well. Riiiiggghhttt. Well first off there were NO SEA UNITS OF ANY KIND in WarCraftI. (Perhaps you never played WarcraftI, or this game I am beginning to believe.) In WarCraftII you could build land units whenever you wished, but sea units only for water maps. StarCraft did not possess sea units either, I see no reason for their inclusion in this game. If you want to add sea units, I would recommend learning how to code and using the WorldEditor which can supposedly allow you to do anything you wish with the game. See the above. Um, see the above. The emphasis on this game was not base-building, but combat/skirmishes. Um, I wouldn't know why you're examining why mechanical units burn gold. Do you question why knights magically pop out of barracks, or why you know how much gold is in each mine exactly? Er, as I have not yet played the custom games, I can not argue. Er, if you don't like the game return it for a refund and save for Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2003, or some other game. No one is forcing you to play this game. If you pee on Blizzards doorstep you'll be arrested btw, so I wouldn't do that.
Greetings there Bonch. I can kinda follow you on the new feel for the game myself. If you can recall from the days of old, this game was always going to be a "mixture" of RPG and RTS combined, originally something along the lings of what Shiny's Sacrifice (sp?) was. (Hero follow view, hero's regenerate in rown if killed, units must be linked to the hero, etc.) During the evolution of the game Blizzard backed away from such a change and stuck with the tried-and-true method, but kept some of the RPG elements around to differ the game from it's precessor somewhat. In a way, what you said "Hey, we'll mix our two biggest money-makers to make a mutant third one" is correct in that StarCraft was a RTS and DiabloII was a RPG. WarCraftIII was designed to be as such. It does not make it a bad game though, I myself enjoy the side quests and RPG features the game has, you don't. Hey, to each their own. As for the graphics, I always liked the cartoony look. Sacrifice (sp?) was very cartoony, and a great game all the same. WarCraftIII is very cartoony as well - something I like. Graphics have never made the game however, 3D or not. Heh, I still play commodore 64 games, and the original Quest for Glorys (Sierra). (Go EGA!) I guess the storyline wasn't to your liking either. Heh heh, I liked it very much, much more complex than the tedium of "side A vs. side B" scenario. Again, to each their own.