Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Blizzard... as 1337 as everyone thinks?

<< < (2/2)

psyjax:
ya, what the hell?

It runs fine on my dual 800Mhz G4 with a GeForce III!

I get some chop when alot of units are fighting, but not THAT much.

Tho I do agree with you, WCII isn't all it's cracked up to be. Starcraft is my fav. RTS of all time.

Ages sucks dick. It's booring, just like M$.

billy_gates:
I have to admit that Warcraft was not all I thought it would be.  First off, the 3d camera system is useless.  This makes me mad because 3d is harder on the computer and looks worse than starcraft.  The only RTS with 3D that used the 3D well was Earth 2150.  Warcraft runs so sucky on my PowerMac 733 with Radeon 7500, its not even funny.  Lowest possible graphics and its still not as smooth as my PC.  Now I don't know wut ur talking about with ur friends 2GHz P4.  I have a 1.7 Athlon and Geforce 4 Ti 4400 and it runs perfect all of the time at 1600x1200 with all the graphics all of the way up.  But I don't care.  I just don't like the gamr play compared to Starcraft.  I hope Starcraft 2 is more fun than Warcraft III.  Also the effects in WCIII are pretty sucky too.  Especailly when compared to Earth 2150.  Earth 2150 had all the technical wonders.  C&C Generals is the only game I ever seen that has a better nuclear eplosion than E2150.  And no game has as good a camera system as E2150.  E2150 also had great formations and platoons and all sorts of shit to make life easier.  Also, IMHO the 12 unit limit on Blizzard games is to make them more challengy.  I think its a strategy thing, no a performance limitor thing.

Just my 2 cents

papercut:

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James: Computer Commando:
you're limited to only 12 units in a group

--- End quote ---


That's called micromanagement. They do that to stop rushes and make you more concern with the battle. You don't have to build ton and tons of units just to win.

They also do that so you can use your magic and stuff. Like blizzard, and you're more into using your heros.

I personally don't like micromanagement, as I do with games like praetorians, but I love warcraft 3 it's one of my all time top games.

lazygamer:

quote:
dude, you're so full of shit...

if you can't run war3 on a 2ghz Geforce4, then i hope you have warrenty. it runs perfect on my 1ghz with a geforce4

hell, it even runs on my friends's 500mhz with a voodoo3!!
--- End quote ---


Probably has to do with how Wind0ze XP is setup.

eradicator:

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James: Computer Commando:
Uh... naw, sorry.

I went and played Warcraft 3 again today... it still sucks ass. I remembered why I only played it a couple of times. It's because an 867MHz G4 with a GB of RAM and a fucking Radeon crawls, the units are as dumb as they were ins Starcraft (pretty dumb! they can't even STAY TOGETHER IN GROUPS), you're limited to only 12 units in a group, and other poor design problems.

As much as I want to like them, I can't. Starcraft was really great, and has decent performance, but the units are rock dumb. Warcraft 3 just sucks in every way.

Maybe Starcraft 2 will still be 2D sprites on a backdrop, and maybe you can have a decent number of units... and maybe the units will figure out how to hold formations, or even just how to be in a formation.

Oh well, flame me for having an opinion...

Blizzard ain't 1337
--- End quote ---


haha, i can't stand the goliaths in starcraft, or the zerglings at times. they don't seem to listen. anyways.. i think blizzard is doing okay on games, they just need to be more innovative, just like every other company.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page