Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

Yeah. It sucks.

[fenrif]

I'm a little dissapointed they only seem to have firebats and the missle-y firebats in the armoury bay. I would've liked to have been able to see all my units there to click on and get some more fluff about them. Seems wierd they'd only do those two units.

I think about half of the units show up in the armory over time. It would have been nice to see the little lore-bits for all of them, but you get a pretty good spread over the course of the campaign.

Yeah, as soon as I finished posting that I got the siege tank in there. Still seems wierd that all of them aren't in there, but oh well.

[Miggy]

Completed the campaign on hard last night. I've got to say, those of you who complain about the difficulty seriously need to turn it up. It was decently challenging on hard mode: Not incredibly difficult, but enough to make me need to do a couple of missions over because I screwed up. Particularly the mission where the sun is about to melt the planet I took a bunch of tries to do, my M&M balls work beautifully until the last base is stock full of templar.

Then I did some brutal mode, and I seriously need to up my game to complete that. Looking forwards to that, actually.

I found the story pretty good, and the in-between areas did a good job of keeping you focused on the story. There wasn't a time where I was just going "OK, auto-RTS to victory, again). I also can't say I agree with the claims of every map being the same old same old. Granted, just about every map has the "Build up your base fast to get an economy and units!", but this is an RTS, that's what you play for. As for the mission objectives and the strategies you needed to employ against them, I thought there were very varied.

All in all, I think the single player is very good, and I haven't even started on the "Challenges" gameplay.

[Asehujiko]

The story was reasonable for the most part, except for the obligatory evil teammate betrayal, which was so obvious it doesn't even count as foreshadowing anymore but just in-game spoilers right from the start. Hidden anyway for people who skip cutscenes:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The intro consists of Tychus receiving a monologue from Arcturus about how he still controls him.

I don't like the fact that more then half the missions are timed or races against stuff. What happened to the more tactical gameplay of "There's 5 bases, each produce different armies and have different defenses, how can I build my forces to counter both the most likely attackers and the most vulnerable defenders?"

Now if anybody can direct me to a few decent TD's, 1 player RPG's or hero defenses or at least some in development maps that look promising.

[Chutney]

Now if anybody can direct me to a few decent TD's, 1 player RPG's or hero defenses or at least some in development maps that look promising.

Step onto B.net for a second and you'll find a few TDs (best of which seems to be Cube TD), and a hero defense that I don't remember the name of.

[Astral]

I have to say, I really did enjoy the campaign. It had an engaging story, and kind of a Mass Effect feel to it as you go through all the flavored content and extra things that the game has to offer in Single Player.

However, many people would've loved to have a game that costs half as much and only go Multiplayer. Computer opponents can only be so much fun to play against; people are (usually) smarter and more devious in ways that an AI could never be, and the social interaction of playing online with real people has an appeal. Multiplayer is where the problem lies with this game; despite a 14 year beta test of Battle.net 1.0, Activision-Blizzard (Activision has most of the blame, though) managed to screw everything up that made the first one successful.

As someone who liked to make and help others with maps on Warcraft 3 and even Starcraft, the current system in place seems geared toward (excuse the harsh comparisons) internet stalking, due to forced RealID usage in lieu of a 'friends list,' (effectively, if you want to "friend" someone that you likely met on the internet, you must know their real name; Facebook stalkers will be happy for this) casual players who want to click a button and join a game, and Blizzard being able to take over any custom content that becomes popular. Yes, they can do that, in addition to providing you only 25 Megabytes across a total of 5 maps, with a maximum limit of 10 MB for a single map. Warcraft 3 maps that use code almost exclusively (DotA is a hugely popular one, for example, with only one custom model) have already reached and even surpassed these limits, in a day and age of Google and Yahoo offering "infinite" storage for free email accounts. Yet, we pay $60 for 25MB. Region locking is also a big deal; I have friends that I played Warcraft 3 with for years who lived in Australia, and now they won't even have a chance due to not having a North American version of the game. And playing outside of your region is illegal/bannable, but technically Blizzard could ban your account for whatever reason they wanted; they already have your money.

Removal of other essential features, like being able to host your own maps, LAN connection ability, chat "channels," basic friend's list implementation, '/' commands, decent support for a custom map making community, and just being dickish in general after the success of World of Warcraft all account for huge flaws in the the game, and I don't expect it to get any better; if people continue buying it, they'll think they're doing something right, and will continue to do it.

At least single player is nice. And Warcraft 3/Starcraft B.net is still up.

Some further reading, both of which are well written, and nothing has changed in the time that either has been done:
http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066

[Eugenitor]

At least single player is nice.

*slaps on eyepatch, polishes hook, feeds cracker to parrot on shoulder*

[forsaken1111]

At least single player is nice.

*slaps on eyepatch, polishes hook, feeds cracker to parrot on shoulder*

Indeed. So very glad I didn't pay for this game.

[ECrownofFire]

...
Removal of other essential features, like being able to host your own maps, LAN connection ability, chat "channels," basic friend's list implementation, '/' commands, decent support for a custom map making community, and just being dickish in general after the success of World of Warcraft all account for huge flaws in the the game, and I don't expect it to get any better; if people continue buying it, they'll think they're doing something right, and will continue to do it.
...

Unable to host your own maps? Removal of slash commands? Removal of chat channels? Can you clarify on this a bit, how do they do chat now? Are there still clans?

[Lumbajak]

Unable to host your own maps? Removal of slash commands? Removal of chat channels? Can you clarify on this a bit, how do they do chat now? Are there still clans?

All games are serverside and you can't put in your own game name.

Just what it sounds like, / commands are gone.

There is no public chat whatsoever, you can open up PM windows with people on your friends list, but the only way to talk to others is to join random games.

No clans.

Wait, you're restricted to one server? Fuck you Blizzard. Fuck you with a pineapple.

Restrictions are in place for the first 60 days after release, after which you can select regions.

(This may not apply to certain regions, in particular Latin America and Korea.)

Gonna have to ask for a source, I haven't seen any Blizzard employees say anything like this.
It still looks like you're going have to pay extra to play on different regions.

[ECrownofFire]

Unable to host your own maps? Removal of slash commands? Removal of chat channels? Can you clarify on this a bit, how do they do chat now? Are there still clans?

All games are serverside and you can't put in your own game name.

Just what it sounds like, / commands are gone.

There is no public chat whatsoever, you can open up PM windows with people on your friends list, but the only way to talk to others is to join random games.

No clans.
...

Gonna have to ask for a source, I haven't seen any Blizzard employees say anything like this.
It still looks like you're going have to pay extra to play on different regions.
[/quote]Serverside games aren't too bad, in WC3 if the host drops, the game ends, while in this it sounds like that won't happen. No custom game names kind of sucks. The lack of public chat is really stupid though, what's the reasoning behind that supposed to be? Clans aren't too bad, but they were a large part of the community in previous Battle.net games. Slash commands were useful, how do you ignore somebody now? Whois commands were good too, to find out where your friends were.

[Lumbajak]

Serverside games aren't too bad, in WC3 if the host drops, the game ends, while in this it sounds like that won't happen. No custom game names kind of sucks. The lack of public chat is really stupid though, what's the reasoning behind that supposed to be? Clans aren't too bad, but they were a large part of the community in previous Battle.net games. Slash commands were useful, how do you ignore somebody now? Whois commands were good too, to find out where your friends were.
[/quote]

Actually in the old games, if someone was able to host, connection would transfer to them when the host left. The way custom games are hosted now is they're all put in a big list and you join one and if there's no open slots it will create a new lobby with you as host. The no names thing also makes it difficult when playing maps that have different game modes.

I don't think they even had a reason behind removing chatrooms, but all we got was "Do you really want chat rooms?"

Your friends list still shows where your friends are, and there may be mute menus and such ingame, but other than that, tough luck.

[Zangi]

What happened to the battle.net of yore?

Well, I remember the battle.net of Starcraft...
The memory of the battle.net of WC3 is fuzzy and it isn't as rose-tinted as the battle.net of Starcraft.

[Lumbajak]

What happened to the battle.net of yore?

Well, I remember the battle.net of Starcraft...
The memory of the battle.net of WC3 is fuzzy and it isn't as rose-tinted as the battle.net of Starcraft.

All but two of Blizzard's employees left and they merged with Activision.
That's what happened.

And the two guys still remaining are in administration.

[fenrif]

...

That stuff about the 25 meg limits, and 5 maps each, etc...

It's staggering that they thought this would be a good idea. How does the game handle using custom maps you've downloaded from outside the bnet publishing thingie? If you can't name your games is it just a case of crossing your fingers and hoping you find a tower defence, or RPG style map?