[Andromeda]

I finished it in both Normal and Hard, the ending credits are sooooooooo funny ... hehehhehe ...

unfortunately, the copy i have dont seem to have TCP/IP multiplayer, only LAN and Battle.net .... =\ ... boo

[Beowulfthefallen]

That horrible game has sucked up a good artist friend of mine's entire day. He never makes any art anymore. Just comes on once in awhile to rant about Warcraft III!

[Tiger Eaten]

Is it good? I haven't really heard anything yet. Opinions? Fun? Like 1 and 2 or better? What's the intro like?

[Vesuvius]

it's pretty good, takes itself more seriously than two (although some jokes from 2 return). some missions are a bit too hard / linear. in general fairly fun.

Neverwinter nights however is a overhyped piece of shit.
it's like diablo
neverwinter gameplay is linear, it's all fighting, and it's repetitive already. there's very little thought involved in it too.
example: sector is overrun with prisoners, kill prisoners, enter building, kill prisoners, go downstairs, kill boss.
sector 2 is overrun with zombies, kill zombies, enter building, kill zombies, go downstairs, kill boss.

the interfaces are dumbed down, the worlds are less interesting/pretty and the maps are downright ugly compared to BG 1 / 2. the money/trading is simplified and makes no sense (every merchant of a certain type has the same inventory) also the fact that you can respawn upon dying shows again it's a mind-numbed arcade game, not an RPG. it is pathetic.

additionally you can only have 1 npc assistant, always have to exchange money for your aide, your aide always progresses EXACTLEY the same (gains levels the same, and talks to you about their sub quest at the exact same points in time experience wise) you also have less control over your NPC then you did even in fallout 1, where you could at least plant some items on them that they used.
the scale of the world is wrong, with buildings that seem to be 10 ft by 20 ft in the world view being more like 60 feet by 120 feet when you actually enter them, although character size is constant. areas are SMALLER than in BG 1 or 2, and have less detail. I don't know, it's just a major step backwards.

AI pathfinding is worse than in BG or in Dungeon siege, with my character unable to navigate up a ramp that he is not directly in front of.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vesuvius ]

[pixelsoldier]

I love this game!

I don't generally play many games, but this is one of the rare ones that has me addicted. Great stuff.

And Vesuvius, you're right.. I couldn't stand NWN for longer than 30 minutes. Horrible.

[Impaler]

Too much thinking in RPG's. Give me my twitch shooter any day.

[James Bradford]

How are the cinematics so far? I am really looking forward to seeing those.

[Andromeda]

i actually thought of buying an original copy of neverwinter nights ..... =\ ...

Anyway for those of you interested ....
CHEATS FOR WARCRAFT3:


whosyourdaddy - 1 hit kill + invincibility.

thereisnospoon - unlimited mana.

iseedeadpeople - reveals entire map.

there are 2 more, but one gives you instant win, and the other instant lose (who would want that ?)

i also have the trainer .. its called 'divine' or something .. got it from gamewinners.com, but the site is currently down ...

also visit www.captaincode.com for more warcraft 3 cheats ... =p

[Xysryc]

Warcraft is THE game!

Absolutely impressiv how Blizzard made another toptitle!

I am really looking forward to play it with some of my friends. Go orcs, go!

[[666]Flat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesBradford:
How are the cinematics so far? I am really looking forward to seeing those.

---

Yeah, yeah, yeah, damn right! I remember that W3 teaser and, oh boy, that was so fucking cool... the moving grass and that knight fighting with an orc... wohooo... Those skill3d boys should make a fucking movie based on the Warcraft theme.

Same goes for Diablo, btw.

[Brain]

I'm already looking to get War3, but the ammount of goodies that the collectors edition has... *drools*

Yeup, there goes my fundage.

[edraket]

Argh.. I need a new computer.

I loved Warcraft 2. And the cinematics were absolutely stunning. I want this game...
But fuck..I can't play it at home I don't think. (P3-450/geforce2gts)
Ahwell..It might run better at work. I'll just play it there.

[Xysryc]

The cinematics are damn good (as I have expected). I guess BLIZZARD is not able to create bad ones, they're just too good.

edraket: My PC at home is even worse: P3-450MHz/Voodoo3 2000 and I was very surprised when I started WC3 the first time - it runs quite well. I can play it using a 1024x768x16 resolution and all details set to middle.

Give it a try!

[James Bradford]

I picked the game up today, so far it is really fun (I have been playing single player). The cutscenes, are of course awesome!

Anyone pick up the Collector Edition version? Is the art book any good? I didn't feel like paying the extra $20.

[Frost]

I haven't played it, and maybe it has great gameplay. However, I wouldn't give it any awards for its in-game graphics achievements, sadly. I expected better from Blizzard. (Yes, I tend to look at games mostly from a graphics perspective as this is my field of interest).

[Molako_Plus]

gameplay and only gameplay.

i will be satisfied with a red square (hero) fighting blue squares (enemies) as long as the story is cool and its fun to play.

yea and when my friend loaded warcraft3 for me i almost blew my load.

i just wish they made a movie out of it cuz it would blow FinalFantasy: Spirits Within out of this cosmos.

[Judex]

Blizzard definately has another hit on its' hands.

Edraket: I think you should be fine with those specs. In fact on of the things I was most blown away with about this game was how smooth it was on my older system (celeron 500 with an original GeForce). I do have a fair amount of Ram (512M) but I think if you have anything close to half that I'm guessing you will be fine. One thing that Blizzard has always done pretty well is make games that will run on nearly every system and this one does. I've also been impressed (so far) with how smooth B.net has been considering the strain it must be under at the moment. Anyway, just wanted to let you know if your sys. specs are holding you back from buying it, I think you should be fine.

James: I did buy the collectors edition, specifically for the art book and in my opinion it is worth the extra bucks (15 I think in the case of where I bought it) Of course as a fan you always want more, but the book is pretty well packed with pictures from all the games (including the one that was cancelled) ranging from cinematic stills to concept art. Worth it in my opinion.

-Rich

[vigilo]

The game is fun, almost as good as second was for its time. I think concept art for it was kind of lame though... i've seen way better here from folks who don't get payed to do it for a living.

[Joachim]

I absolutely LOVE this game.
I don't usually play games, but warcraft3 has sucked up all my spare time and time spent painting, spent here, etc..... I've played through single player and now I'm enjoying the tournament on battlenet. The game is KICKASS in my opinion. And, the hero element has truly brought a new genious feature into strategy games.

actually frost, I see what you mean about the graphics, I thought so myself in the beginning. But, after playing it a while I actually like the in-game graphics very much and trust me the colors, style and animation is nothing else than made like this with an intention.

[Bg]

Joachim, happy to hear that I'm not the only one wasting my life on this game, played it last night with my friend till 8 am

About the graphics: I'm with Frost on this one, it clearly shows this game isn't aimed for high-end computers, the textures are very small and polycount isn't very high (a guy from Nvidia once said: if you can see the model is made of polygons, you are not using enough polygons).

In fact the graphics are limiting the gameplay, because you can only have 90 units (FE in Warrior Kings there can be 2000, and they're more detailed too) so it's going closer to Diablo, actually there's often more units on screen in Diablo 2 than in Warcraft 3 .. the visible screen space for the in-game graphics is very small, the "processor time cheap" 2d interface is hogging just as much space as it took in Starcraft.

Other than that the gameplay is excellent!

But I still hope Blizzard would have made this game in 2d, it would look 10x better and run in even older systems and the gameplay could be just as good or better and they could have made it in much shorter time, now they had to make 3d-engine and it took quite a while! Unfortunately 3d does NOT add anything to War 3's gameplay, I checked out Medieval: Total War on the weekend and that's a good example of how to use 3d to improve gameplay.

[Guy]

im loving this game too. i don't mind the low poly count. you dont need anything insainly high anyway, but being able to have more then 90 units would be great. oh and does any one else find Arthas as annoying as i do? i want him to die... badly.

[Binke]

Well said BG, couldnt agree more.

one thing that I really dont understand, is the character portraits. WHY did they make them in lowpoly 3D & with ugly textures?
in starcraft, they were pre-rendered really nice, and it worked perfectly well with the in-game cinematic events.. either they were lazy or didnt have time to render them out, but that makes no sense.

[Tendril]

The graphics are pretty low end, but i was really impressed with the art of the game. I think pretty soon people are going to have to start differentiating between in game art and graphics. I thought some of the environments were absolutely beautiful. Granted some characters werent that great looking. I thought the designs for those pig things and the bear things were great.

[Joachim]

Yeah, much is taste of course. And, the fact that I like playing the game does make me liking the art more.
But, the way they have exaggerated the models and carttony feeling I do like a lot. Also, the strong colors help the gameplay.
Actually binke, I don't agree with you, I prefer the low poly models with facial expression and nice animation instead of a boring brushed still frames of the faces. Most of them actually look really cool too, like the ghoul, etc and when you play 1.player you get a lot better relation to the character you are playing when you see that face with the voice synch. But, again, it's a matter of taste, but for me I think the faces you see below is one of the grapical things I really enjoy about the game. Only graphical thing I don't like about the game is the drawings/sketches in the loading screen, I don't dig blizzards concept artists that much.

[atomicmonkey]

I bought this game a couple a days after it came out, and have been playing it madly ever since. I used to be really big on games, but for the past year or so, I haven't cared to much (which is good i suppose). Warcraft III makes me want to play again, though.

I love Blizzard. I'm sorry, I don't care how many times they delay a game (and they always do), I KNOW when the game is finally released it will be good.

I love the graphics. The colours, the cartoony feel (bad way to describe it but it's true, and it looks great), it's all good. Cinematics are insanely good. Gameplay is top notch. I love the use of Heroes, not only because of their spells and power, but because they basically make you want to leave your base early. One thing that you could always do in the past is 'turtle' in your base... basically hide away and tech up, growing a massive army. This isn't possible in War3. If you don't leave your base and level up your hero, you're screwed.

Oh yeah, Undead are badass.

[lalPOOO]

arh.. I was a beta testor. War3 is good, but I can't get over the fact that they didn't add more units, like the gameplay is nice and all, but theres not enough variety. I also didn't like what they did with the orcs, instead of good stuff they added a bunch of elephants with drums (if I wanted that I'd go to the circus)

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I'm not going to pay 59.99 for it.