Post by bigpenguin on Mar 17, 2006 20:39:38 GMT -5
That's right, I'm here to argue the point that Blizzard's third installment to the classic Warcraft series blows. Note, this is merely my opinion.
As a fan of Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft, I was expecting great things but I was disappointed from the moment I started playing the campaign to creating an account for Battle.net.
Where to start? The idea of Heroes I think ruins the game. Creating heroes I think ruins the experience. They are fine in single player but always having them I think takes the fun out of it. You take time out of the game to get your hero leveled up or else you are screwed, if your opponent gets lvl 10 and you are at lvl 6 or 7, your more than likely dead.
I loved Warcraft II, at the time, especially with the boats because you could harvest oil as a resource. Where are the boats in Warcraft III? It would have been better if they put them in. Perhaps Blizzard didn't stick them in because of the next point...
Having upkeep, who thought of that idea? The population limit is low, and the game is close to being over by the time you reach the limit. I think it would have been better if it had a larger population limit and units cost less. See, Age of Empires and Empire Earth know what I'm talking about. Though Warcraft III likes their graphics, it is not worth it! Isn't it more fun attacking with 30-35 troops with siege equipment instead of no more than 12 troops with a hero or two?
The game does keep close to the original Warcraft I and II concepts, which is good but defense structures seem to have gotten worse. You could rely on towers to defend the base from a quick rush but in Warcraft III, think again. You usually don't have enough gold to build lots of defenses anyway. You are too busy making barracks and regular soldiers.
Warcraft III Battle.net, yawn. That's all I got to say about that.
Yes, footmen and grunts do look a lot better. Adding two new teams was good as well but that isn't enough for me to say "I think you should get this game".
As a fan of Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft, I was expecting great things but I was disappointed from the moment I started playing the campaign to creating an account for Battle.net.
Where to start? The idea of Heroes I think ruins the game. Creating heroes I think ruins the experience. They are fine in single player but always having them I think takes the fun out of it. You take time out of the game to get your hero leveled up or else you are screwed, if your opponent gets lvl 10 and you are at lvl 6 or 7, your more than likely dead.
I loved Warcraft II, at the time, especially with the boats because you could harvest oil as a resource. Where are the boats in Warcraft III? It would have been better if they put them in. Perhaps Blizzard didn't stick them in because of the next point...
Having upkeep, who thought of that idea? The population limit is low, and the game is close to being over by the time you reach the limit. I think it would have been better if it had a larger population limit and units cost less. See, Age of Empires and Empire Earth know what I'm talking about. Though Warcraft III likes their graphics, it is not worth it! Isn't it more fun attacking with 30-35 troops with siege equipment instead of no more than 12 troops with a hero or two?
The game does keep close to the original Warcraft I and II concepts, which is good but defense structures seem to have gotten worse. You could rely on towers to defend the base from a quick rush but in Warcraft III, think again. You usually don't have enough gold to build lots of defenses anyway. You are too busy making barracks and regular soldiers.
Warcraft III Battle.net, yawn. That's all I got to say about that.
Yes, footmen and grunts do look a lot better. Adding two new teams was good as well but that isn't enough for me to say "I think you should get this game".