Why does Warcraft III suck??

[Pudgygiant]

Yeah, it sucks. I blew $80 on the special edition, which actually turned out to be a good thing, because otherwise I would have wasted many hours to see the cutscenes. If there's one thing I can say about blizzard, it's that when they think they come out with a crappy game (WC3) but when they get rushed into something, or just say, hey, I got an idea, make it, and move the hell on, then they come out with incredible games (starcraft, wc2, diablo). If there's two things I can say, it's that, and the fact that their cutscenes are second to very very few. The wc3 cutscenes look insanely sweet. The only problem is there's more story in a babysitter's club book.

*EDIT
And we call our porcelain toilet "the frozen throne". Draw your own conclusions.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

 

[LOLyourFace]

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

you're totally missing my point. did i ever say WC was better than SC? SC was a legend (i totally recognize that, being Korean)
im saying those two are diff games.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

Umm thats exactly what my point was, the not appealing to newbies part. What fun is a game without newbies? WC3 is a bunch of hardcore RTS players with nothing better to do.

EDIT: basically the game is no fun for newbs, even on SC u can play fastest till u get the hang of the the tech tree. And on BF1942 u might not place top but u'll still have a blast blowing some dudes up. Too many hardcore players on WC3, and no way too learn but to play 600hrs and lose 150times in a row.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

I'll admit I never liked those types of games like WC and SC. But I enjoyed playing WC3 immensely. It was a challenge and I enjoyed getting my ass kicked by my cousin.

 

[LOLyourFace]

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

Umm thats exactly what my point was, the not appealing to newbies part. What fun is a game without newbies? WC3 is a bunch of hardcore RTS players with nothing better to do.

EDIT: basically the game is no fun for newbs, even on SC u can play fastest till u get the hang of the the tech tree. And on BF1942 u might not place top but u'll still have a blast blowing some dudes up. Too many hardcore players on WC3, and no way too learn but to play 600hrs and lose 150times in a row.

err? War3 involves that much of learning curve? i don't think so, this is not Civilization or even SimCity 3000, it's an action game.. any console gamers can learn and play within an hour or two. you're seriously impaired if Warcraft 3 takes you 600hrs to learn..

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

Umm thats exactly what my point was, the not appealing to newbies part. What fun is a game without newbies? WC3 is a bunch of hardcore RTS players with nothing better to do.

EDIT: basically the game is no fun for newbs, even on SC u can play fastest till u get the hang of the the tech tree. And on BF1942 u might not place top but u'll still have a blast blowing some dudes up. Too many hardcore players on WC3, and no way too learn but to play 600hrs and lose 150times in a row.

err? War3 involves that much of learning curve? i don't think so, this is not Civilization or even SimCity 3000, it's an action game.. any console gamers can learn and play within an hour or two. you're seriously impaired if Warcraft 3 takes you 600hrs to learn..

I think he means to be decent at it. WC3 can be learned in an hour or two, but to be halfway decent to where you can actually win a game on BNet takes many many hours. The only way my cousin and I won any games was when his friend who was bad ass played with us. (We both had never played any type of RTS game like this before) In total we've probably put in over 50+ hours but have no wins on our own or with each other.

 

[fs5]

WC is not ONLY for the Hardcore, many people can enjoy the game. It's the face that you'll never reach past level 10 everybody is complaining that this game sucks. That's why they put the level system in battle.net so seperate the hardcore from the softcore.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

Umm thats exactly what my point was, the not appealing to newbies part. What fun is a game without newbies? WC3 is a bunch of hardcore RTS players with nothing better to do.

EDIT: basically the game is no fun for newbs, even on SC u can play fastest till u get the hang of the the tech tree. And on BF1942 u might not place top but u'll still have a blast blowing some dudes up. Too many hardcore players on WC3, and no way too learn but to play 600hrs and lose 150times in a row.

err? War3 involves that much of learning curve? i don't think so, this is not Civilization or even SimCity 3000, it's an action game.. any console gamers can learn and play within an hour or two. you're seriously impaired if Warcraft 3 takes you 600hrs to learn..

I think he means to be decent at it. WC3 can be learned in an hour or two, but to be halfway decent to where you can actually win a game on BNet takes many many hours. The only way my cousin and I won any games was when his friend who was bad ass played with us. (We both had never played any type of RTS game like this before) In total we've probably put in over 50+ hours but have no wins on our own or with each other.

This is true...the game is not that hard to learn, but learning to play well takes a while. And most of the low-level players are just new accounts from high-level players so I can see how it can be frustrating for newer players. Still, learning to play decently and winning a good game is much more satisfying than most other RTS games and that's what has kept me playing.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: deerslayer
Warcraft II > Warcraft III

IMHO, it sucks because you don't get any time to build up a defense/army of guys, but that's just personal preference. I enjoyed building up a ton of guys and then going at it.

which blizz INTENTIONALLY avoided. That was done to death in StarCraft and ppl critized it just involving macromanagement (just produce, then attack command)

so War3 was made with heroes and considerably less army size (food limit 100, initially 90 before the expansion came out) emphasizing on micromanagement

it's fun in its own way: to cast offensive or defensive spells? focus fire or use magic? to dispel that magic or run away? use potions to heal or use unit-sacrifice hp restore or both?

you're right, it's just personal preference.

Log on BW and do "/users" Then log on TFT and type "/users" which one do more ppl seem to enjoy?

The Sims is the most popular PC game of all time...does that make it the best PC game of all time?

SC has appeal because it's a simple premise, has low system requirements (you can run it on a damn Pentium 75) and it takes no time to learn. I think WC3 is the better designed game - it is truly innovative in a lot of ways and different enough that it could be in its own genre. It's not appealing to newbies that want to win by queueing up hyralisks though so it will never enjoy the following SC has.

Umm thats exactly what my point was, the not appealing to newbies part. What fun is a game without newbies? WC3 is a bunch of hardcore RTS players with nothing better to do.

EDIT: basically the game is no fun for newbs, even on SC u can play fastest till u get the hang of the the tech tree. And on BF1942 u might not place top but u'll still have a blast blowing some dudes up. Too many hardcore players on WC3, and no way too learn but to play 600hrs and lose 150times in a row.

err? War3 involves that much of learning curve? i don't think so, this is not Civilization or even SimCity 3000, it's an action game.. any console gamers can learn and play within an hour or two. you're seriously impaired if Warcraft 3 takes you 600hrs to learn..

I think he means to be decent at it. WC3 can be learned in an hour or two, but to be halfway decent to where you can actually win a game on BNet takes many many hours. The only way my cousin and I won any games was when his friend who was bad ass played with us. (We both had never played any type of RTS game like this before) In total we've probably put in over 50+ hours but have no wins on our own or with each other.

I wouldn't say it's quite THAT bad...I am not that hardcore but I am a lvl 10 (though the fact that I'm not hardcore shows in my wins/losses) and I still enjoy it. You just have to have more than a 10 second attention span and be willing to accept losing a bit.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: ncircle
usually, i just buy Blizzards games no questions asked.
for the life of me, I cannot get into wc3..its just silly.
even moreso when Rise of Nations and Age of Mythology are both vastly superior.
any suggestions games similar to AOM and RON that dont suck like WCIII
and are not named empire earth?


*i know ill get flamed, but I know some will agree with me.

It's not as newbie friendly...if you pull off a smart strat and surprise someone you have no chance of beating anyone better than you....

 

[gflores]

i bought wc3 collectors edition the day it came out, thinking it would be the greatest thing since diablo 2... for some reason, in my opinion, it wasn't as fun as starcraft (btw starcraft does require strategy... try the normal maps, not the other mucho-money maps and it's got awesome mods). i did think it was innovative with the heros and the limited units that you can create,really added more strategy, along with teh creeps. however, wc3 is much better than wc2 and rise of nations, imo, i guess because i'm used to warcraft and blizzard games. i did find it quite a bit harder than starcraft. in starcraft, i could easily defeat 4 comps in custom game. in wc3, i could hardly beat one! it is geared more towards experienced rts gamers. ron is not vastly superior.. i think if you liked age of empires, then you'll like ron more. i hated age of empires, and ron was much better, but not even close to wc3, imo.
one final note... after purchasing wc3, i haven't really played many games on all consoles, although i've rented a few every now and then, so i guess i'm not in the gaming attitude anymore .

 

[Lager]

My brother is a Warcraft III addict. All he does is play Warcraft III FT, eat and take #2.

 

[Gunbuster]

To not get detroyed in war3 you have to hotkey/group/micromanage everything, thats the part I dont like

 

[skace]

WC3 and Frozen Throne were both awesome single player games, imo. Loved the stories immensly. The multiplayer ended up not being as fun as I thought it would be. But then I tried a team game and was suprised. Playing 4v4 is WICKED fun. You have to make up team strategies and help out your buddies / etc. Good times

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: gflores
i bought wc3 collectors edition the day it came out, thinking it would be the greatest thing since diablo 2... for some reason, in my opinion, it wasn't as fun as starcraft (btw starcraft does require strategy... try the normal maps, not the other mucho-money maps and it's got awesome mods). i did think it was innovative with the heros and the limited units that you can create,really added more strategy, along with teh creeps. however, wc3 is much better than wc2 and rise of nations, imo, i guess because i'm used to warcraft and blizzard games. i did find it quite a bit harder than starcraft. in starcraft, i could easily defeat 4 comps in custom game. in wc3, i could hardly beat one! it is geared more towards experienced rts gamers. ron is not vastly superior.. i think if you liked age of empires, then you'll like ron more. i hated age of empires, and ron was much better, but not even close to wc3, imo.
one final note... after purchasing wc3, i haven't really played many games on all consoles, although i've rented a few every now and then, so i guess i'm not in the gaming attitude anymore .

The reason why my RL friends got frustrated and quit was cause they couldn't win and couldn't figure out why they lost. They both played starcraft and could win a lot of the time. What most people don't understand going from SC to war3 is that micro is the whole game...it's not so much a strategy game more than it is a feel for when you can win a battle and how well you control your units. It took me a good 200 hours before I got to the point where I could win 2/3's of my games. A player can beat you with the complete wrong types of units as long as his micro is a lot better than yours...that and it's hard for newbies to figure out the hero system and how leveling your hero matters...
The other thing is some units that you expect to be good like knights are pretty worthless...

The only way we could win at the beginning was to harass and tower rush....

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
I disagree.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: skace
WC3 and Frozen Throne were both awesome single player games, imo. Loved the stories immensly. The multiplayer ended up not being as fun as I thought it would be. But then I tried a team game and was suprised. Playing 4v4 is WICKED fun. You have to make up team strategies and help out your buddies / etc. Good times

I hate team games...but that's cause I hate getting beat when it's out of my control where I can completely cripple 1 guy on a harass then start teching and then they go and kill my ally 2 on 1...and it wouldn't be a big deal if they killed him but he loses all his units and feeds their heroes experience so when they attack me their heroes are lvl 4 and 5 and mine are 2 and 3...that's why I absolutely hate team games...

 

[wicktron]

WC3 owns. I like managing every aspect of the game. It's not a build and destroy match. It's a build, think ahead, destroy match.

 

[ragazzo]

WCIII + DOTA mod (multiplayer) = Hours of fun

 

[numark]

WC3 has an awful single-player storyline and an atrocious navigation system. In trying to make everything flashy 3D style, they made it way too hard to actually scroll around the screen and work with characters. WC2 may not have had the blocky 3D polygons, but it was easy to handle and didn't give that much of a problem in terms of navigation.

 

[CrazyDe1]

I'm an addict to this game though...I find myself neglecting friends and family and not answering phone calls sometimes just cause I want to use the few hours of free time i have at night to play...

 

[RalphWiggum]

I was pretty into War2. I use to spend all my time on Kali and playing that game, getting involved on ladders and clan wars. I also bought the War3: CE the day it came out, thinking it would be just as great and rekindle my interest in pc games. I was wrong.

I think the reason War3 just isn't as fun to some is they took out the economy aspect of the game. In War2, you had to decide between another peon for gold, or get a grunt, or upgrade, or save for a stronghold or fort. In War3, its make sure you have 5 peons on gold, and then you decide how many you want on wood and thats all. Sure, you can quick expand, but limiting the peons on a mine really took a lot of the decision out of early game I think. Also, once you hit a certain upkeep level, you knew you would stop making units, and thats all there was to it. This meant you spent time just moving men around creeping or hopefully fighting the enemy who got caught creeping. In War2, theres no downtime where you stop making men.

Also, the fixed position of team play and symmetric maps made strategies stagnant. You know where your partner is and in many cases you know exactly where the enemy is. In War2, you might be cross the map from your ally and sandwiched between two enemies, or you might all wind up on bottom and have to fight it out. So, you'd have to adjust your strategy and build order to include the possibility of being double teamed, etc.

I quit War3 after about 2 months of multiplayer. Although, the mods for the game, such as DOTA and some others, are a ton of fun.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: RalphWiggum
I was pretty into War2. I use to spend all my time on Kali and playing that game, getting involved on ladders and clan wars. I also bought the War3: CE the day it came out, thinking it would be just as great and rekindle my interest in pc games. I was wrong.

I think the reason War3 just isn't as fun to some is they took out the economy aspect of the game. In War2, you had to decide between another peon for gold, or get a grunt, or upgrade, or save for a stronghold or fort. In War3, its make sure you have 5 peons on gold, and then you decide how many you want on wood and thats all. Sure, you can quick expand, but limiting the peons on a mine really took a lot of the decision out of early game I think. Also, once you hit a certain upkeep level, you knew you would stop making units, and thats all there was to it. This meant you spent time just moving men around creeping or hopefully fighting the enemy who got caught creeping. In War2, theres no downtime where you stop making men.

Also, the fixed position of team play and symmetric maps made strategies stagnant. You know where your partner is and in many cases you know exactly where the enemy is. In War2, you might be cross the map from your ally and sandwiched between two enemies, or you might all wind up on bottom and have to fight it out. So, you'd have to adjust your strategy and build order to include the possibility of being double teamed, etc.

I quit War3 after about 2 months of multiplayer. Although, the mods for the game, such as DOTA and some others, are a ton of fun.

That's true but I don't think that's the reason why a lot of people don't like it. It boils down to that the game isn't very newbie friendly and you have to play people of your skill level or higher on teh ladder page. Whereas in war2 you could sit on kali and if you were decent at one map you'd play mostly newbies and you'd be satisfied cause you were alright and won 5 or 6 games in a row. If you're not pretty awesome you're not going to win 5 or 6 games in a row in war3. That and newbies like to turtle and build up the awesome units...they don't want to have to be forced to build tier 1 to survive. If you keep dying to a rush then you're not gonna enjoy the game very much.

I have friends who think we lost games based on the opponents having way more archers when it's really their micro. Then they go and pump tier 1 the entire game and creep cause they don't like to attack early then wonder why they lost when they had way more tier 1 than the enemy. Then they get pissed cause they think it's all a tier 1 game and they never get to make the good tier 3 units or they think you teched way too fast when you lost mostly cause they got crippled in a hero rush because they didn't know how to run peasants awy. It boils down to the game isn't easy to get wins in and tactics that work against the computer don't work vs humans.

I remember in war2 one of my friends got really good then he showed me a few awesome build orders that I could pull off with almost no unit control as long as I learned the build orders. All of a sudden I was winning 90% of my games. You can have the best build order in the world and still suck because this game is 75% micro..