Why does Warcraft III suck??

[spaceman]

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.

 

[bandana163]

I disagree.

 

[waggy]

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.

i agree with you. so does my wife.

she loves WC2 and playes it all the time. she couldnt get into wc3 at all.

its just not as fun as WC2 is.

 

[Malladine]

Nope, no suggestions on that.

I won't flame ya, but I do disagree. I've had more fun LAN games of WC3 than I can count. Either my wife and I or her son and myself. 1v1 and 3 way FFA.

Tried multiplayer lan yet? If not, I bet it will change your mind...

 

[BatmanNate]

I'm the opposite, I usually hate Blizzard's games but I like WC3. It wasn't as cool as AOM or RON or Generals IMHO, but it wasn't bad. I think what bugged me most was the scale. Armies were a few guys instead of a hundred guys.

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

i agree with you. so does my wife.

she loves WC2 and playes it all the time. she couldnt get into wc3 at all.

its just not as fun as WC2 is.

i thought wcII and starcraft were both great games as well..i loved them.
Warcraft 3 is lacking something, i cannot quite place my finger on it...

 

[Malladine]

Oh, hey, is that Rise of Nations out of sync bug fixed yet? I really hope so... :frown:

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: ncircle

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

i agree with you. so does my wife.

she loves WC2 and playes it all the time. she couldnt get into wc3 at all.

its just not as fun as WC2 is.

i thought wcII and starcraft were both great games as well..i loved them.
Warcraft 3 is lacking something, i cannot quite place my finger on it...

Innovation?

 

[Maleficus]

I had no trouble getting into WC3, Solo got boring after a while though and i had no AT partner so i quit but AT was a lot of fun.

 

[bandana163]

The only problem with WC3 is that most online players use only 1 tactic/race. It is soo boring when you only see archers/huntresses in 10 games.

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
The only problem with WC3 is that most online players use only 1 tactic/race. It is soo boring when you only see archers/huntresses in 10 games.

That's precisely why I don't play online

 

[MustangSVT]

i agree.

wc3 is just not fun

i just played some mods (defense maps and multiplayer hero maps and such). but im back to SC. much better imo.

 

[MournSanity]

You say it sucks, but you don't list any reasons why. Then why should I care about your opinion at all?

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
The only problem with WC3 is that most online players use only 1 tactic/race. It is soo boring when you only see archers/huntresses in 10 games.

RoC or TFT?

 

[bandana163]

Originally posted by: fivespeed5

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
The only problem with WC3 is that most online players use only 1 tactic/race. It is soo boring when you only see archers/huntresses in 10 games.

RoC or TFT?

TFT

I hate the crypt lord + fiend + obelisk + banshee against NE and nothing else, too.
Not to mention the sorcerer or gryphon rushers.

 

[Mani]

WC3 is one of the better games that has come out in a while. Unlike a game like SC, it doesn't just boil down to resource management and mass producing units, but focuses on how well you can micromanage your units and how well you use your heros.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: Mani
WC3 is one of the better games that has come out in a while. Unlike a game like SC, it doesn't just boil down to resource management and mass producing units, but focuses on how well you can micromanage your units and how well you use your heros.

Heard of a map called Lost Temple? Anyway (noob!!!) WC3 is a lame game and i hate it. I've never been able to get into the game, it's to repetitive, the learning curve is too long for new casual gamers.

And so u end up with a bunch of loosers online with nothing better to do then play WC3 because the learn curve is too long for casual gamers, and you couple it with a lame, limited, non-depthed single player mode and u get one boring game not worth me buying the TFT exp. Unless of course i played 6hrs of non-stop WC3 a day. Errr i have better things to do then play for 600hours to learn the game good enough to have fun and be competitive with the other online gamers.

 

[Hammyton]

I'm not very good but using the random ladder 1v1 system that battle.net has MOST of the time I can find very decent matchups over the net.... sometimes sure you end up going against a lvl 1 that has another account thats lvl 30 or something, but MOST of the time I usually get fun and rather evenly-matched games

 

[cjgallen]

Warcraft III is an awesome game. Too bad I suck at it

 

[LOLyourFace]

i'm a hardcore WC3er. In terms of strategies, there are thousands: beastmaster + archers, spell combos, hero nuking or army killing, etc...

It's a great game.. the only reason why your avg gamers don't like it is because of same rehashed gameplay since Warcraft2, Starcraft, etc... (Although introducing heroes totally changed gameplay but ppl don't realize that or do not see that as a significant enough change)

move on, this thread is now officially over.

 

[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.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: OverVolt

Originally posted by: Mani
WC3 is one of the better games that has come out in a while. Unlike a game like SC, it doesn't just boil down to resource management and mass producing units, but focuses on how well you can micromanage your units and how well you use your heros.

Heard of a map called Lost Temple? Anyway (noob!!!) WC3 is a lame game and i hate it. I've never been able to get into the game, it's to repetitive, the learning curve is too long for new casual gamers.

And so u end up with a bunch of loosers online with nothing better to do then play WC3 because the learn curve is too long for casual gamers, and you couple it with a lame, limited, non-depthed single player mode and u get one boring game not worth me buying the TFT exp. Unless of course i played 6hrs of non-stop WC3 a day. Errr i have better things to do then play for 600hours to learn the game good enough to have fun and be competitive with the other online gamers.

Uh...wtf does Lost Temple have to do with anything? WC's learning curve isn't too all that steep. What takes time is developing good strategies and learning to allocate and use your heroes' abilities effectively.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
i'm a hardcore WC3er. In terms of strategies, there are thousands: beastmaster + archers, spell combos, hero nuking or army killing, etc...

It's a great game.. the only reason why your avg gamers don't like it is because of same rehashed gameplay since Warcraft2, Starcraft, etc... (Although introducing heroes totally changed gameplay but ppl don't realize that or do not see that as a significant enough change)

move on, this thread is now officially over.

JW'ing how much do u play a day?

I was able to pick up BF1942 and enjoy blasting away dudes 2hours after i bought the game, even if i didn't win, or place 1st it wuz still fun. Then once i played a tad bit more i got good enough to get 1st or so about everyother game bcoz i stuck with it since it was fun. No way you could enjoy playing WC3 2hours in, u'd get ur butt whooped everygame, what fun!!!!Way more fun than WC3 IMO.

EDIT: has to do with LT bcoz he mentioned micromanagement, and blaming SC for having no part of it. I just pointed out map !

 

[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.

 

[tweakmm]

Because you are no good at it