I'm gonna get Warcraft III

[Jaguar]

I've played it a couple times and I really like it. I think I'm gonna get it. Anyone here play it?

[Jamski]

Yes, I played it for a while. Bit cartoony, and a bit too much going on all at once for a game without a pause, but it was ok.

-Jam

[Juggler]

I liked all those new races and units but there is just too much action and very little strategy in the game

I finished the campaigns though

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Juggler
I liked all those new races and units but there is just too much action and very little strategy in the game

My thoughts exactly...

The differences in the races are great, other games should take note to this... But on the fun part, this game should take note on other games (like RoN)

[Adagio]

And when talking about graphics, this game really lacks 'behind'... at the time this game was released I hated the graphics... and I still do

[Grumbold]

I got bored about half way through the campaign.

[SpencerH]

I liked it well enough that I'll pick up the frozen throne (later).

[pg]

wc3 is all about multiplayer(i think the single player is a bore) and, yes it does have lots of strategy/tactics. the problem with wc3 is how hardcore you have to be to really appreciate it. it's really frustrating to play online if you aren't already good at rts games because things are so fast and fluid not to mention deep. if the game was 10x slower(or a tbs) people probably could follow all the gameplay but since it's so fast people get lost.

it reminds me of an argument quake players have. quake 2 players say quake 2's gameplay is better because you have to time and think about everything since everything happens slowly(compared to other quakes anyways). the fact of the matter is though that games like quake 1 or quake 3 have all the gameplay of quake 2 but everything just goes much quicker.

[Whoha]

I have, some of the user created use mission settings maps are fun, but the standard melee is not.

[DrSpike]

I am a well known rabid WC3 fan, but pg has it. In truth, though it's a perfectly playable game with some varied campaigns, SP RTS can get a little boring.

MP is where it's at, and for MP TFT is undeniably brilliant. If you like MP RTS (or are especially fond of RTS in SP) then get it, and say goodbye to your life. If not, buy something else.

Death to all Night Elves!

[Barinthus]

I love it - I recently completed the vanilla single player campiagn and am now almost 1/3 thru the expansion.

The thing is that on the normal mode I find the game toooo easy and on the hard mode, it's very hard. I suppose if you were to play the normal first, the hard mode will be a bit easier.

Maps have a lot of secrets and surprises so it's worthwhile to really explore or of course you could look up a walkthrough somewhere on the 'Net .

I find all races fun to play in their own ways.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I am a well known rabid WC3 fan, but pg has it. In truth, though it's a perfectly playable game with some varied campaigns, SP RTS can get a little boring.

I enjoyed the AOE SP campaigns, particularly the Ascent of Egypt tutorial campaign, and the Rise of Rome Campaigns - and some really excellent, surprisingly historically accurate users made campaigns.

Is it just me, or is there something about AOE (its historical setting?) that makes it better in SP? Hows RON in SP campaigns?

[DrSpike]

AOE2/AOM/RoN are all games I didn't finish the SP campaigns to. WC3 (and TFT) I found more compelling, and SC I finished the SP campaigns also.

But I am not really representative I suspect - RTS was made for MP, and SP just doesn't do it for me.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is it just me, or is there something about AOE (its historical setting?) that makes it better in SP? Hows RON in SP campaigns?

I didn't like AoE's (1 + 2) SP mode for some reason, and I only played AoE2 once MP, and it wasn't really that interesting either, but that might have to do with the fact that I was on team with one who after 1 hour only had built very few buildings and none units... he was wiped out after 1 hour... The other two had played the game several times, while I haven't played it before, but I still managed to wipe the two other players out easily...

RoN's campaign is not like AoE's campaign, but gives more options like who to go to war with and where to attack... also signing aliances is among the possibilities... Different land gives different bonuses
I prefer this Civ'ish campaign

[Zero]

Yes, I played it for a while. Bit cartoony, and a bit too much going on all at once for a game without a pause, but it was ok.

-Jam

Originally posted by Juggler
I liked all those new races and units but there is just too much action and very little strategy in the game

I finished the campaigns though

its really funnny to hear TBS player say this about action packed games such as Warcraft. Here we have gamers that play civ type games, a game that requires a bit of strategy and thinking, and once you give them a fast paced, time ticking fast action games, they dont like it because theres too much going on too fast or theres little strategy.

Game isnt that fast. Not compared to SC (even on normal setting). Because of higher HP battle lasts longer. Yes you cant do all you want in limited time, but thats how it goes. You gotta try to do as much as you can. Thats part of the game. And whoever can manage more in short amount of time is the better player. Thats part of being better.

Game should be observed carefully before just being passed as no strategy brainless game. Just because you played it brainlessly agst some cpu or stupid opponent doesnt mean its a brainless game.