Comment Re:Shitty review, read here for the real deal (Score 1) 504
I totally agree that timothy's review was utter nonsense. gphat's was much closer to the truth. There were just a few things that he forgot to mention.
First of all, timothy was completely wrong about the gamespeed being faster (has he even played the game?). One of the first things I noticed about the game was in fact that the game speed is slower. Generally things take longer to build, troops are a little slower, and units have more hit points so they last longer in battle. What all this means is that you have more time to plan your strategies, and you can change your tactics in the middle of battle if you notice your troops aren't doing well. One thing I will say though, is that it generally takes fewer building to advance up the tech tree, so in that sense, the game is a little faster.
More importantly however, is the addition of "creeps" on the map. gphat mentioned their existence, but failed to stress their importance. The primary reason I think they are so important is that the stop people from rushing. They generally stand on critical paths (such as paths between enemy cities) and prevent enemies from rushing and destroying your town. In that sense, you can use the creeps as allies instead of enemies.
This is not to say that I think the game is flawless or even worth buying. Blizzard promised to make the game more of a role-playing game and less of an RTS. (Though if they consider hack-and-slash Diablo an RPG, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.) As production progressed, they slowly cut back on RPG elements, and it morphed back into an RTS game. They still have several good additions (such as the creeps, upkeep, etc.), but at heart Warcraft III is just an upgraded version of Warcraft II. I just wanted to give an accurate portrayal of what exactly this game is like. If you ask me, you should just wait for Neverwinter Nights. It's going to be a much better RPG with more strategy in its battles than the best RTS's, and if you're easily impressed by graphics, well, it beats Warcraft III there too.
First of all, timothy was completely wrong about the gamespeed being faster (has he even played the game?). One of the first things I noticed about the game was in fact that the game speed is slower. Generally things take longer to build, troops are a little slower, and units have more hit points so they last longer in battle. What all this means is that you have more time to plan your strategies, and you can change your tactics in the middle of battle if you notice your troops aren't doing well. One thing I will say though, is that it generally takes fewer building to advance up the tech tree, so in that sense, the game is a little faster.
More importantly however, is the addition of "creeps" on the map. gphat mentioned their existence, but failed to stress their importance. The primary reason I think they are so important is that the stop people from rushing. They generally stand on critical paths (such as paths between enemy cities) and prevent enemies from rushing and destroying your town. In that sense, you can use the creeps as allies instead of enemies.
This is not to say that I think the game is flawless or even worth buying. Blizzard promised to make the game more of a role-playing game and less of an RTS. (Though if they consider hack-and-slash Diablo an RPG, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.) As production progressed, they slowly cut back on RPG elements, and it morphed back into an RTS game. They still have several good additions (such as the creeps, upkeep, etc.), but at heart Warcraft III is just an upgraded version of Warcraft II. I just wanted to give an accurate portrayal of what exactly this game is like. If you ask me, you should just wait for Neverwinter Nights. It's going to be a much better RPG with more strategy in its battles than the best RTS's, and if you're easily impressed by graphics, well, it beats Warcraft III there too.
