Warcraft III: Reforged - now with lowest user metacritic score of all time

[Absinthe]

Zawinski's law of software envelopment: "Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can." I guess these days it's reading webpages instead of mail but that's honestly worse. This is amazingly incompetent trash.

 

[Preben]

Going to go out on a limb and guess that like most companies that deteriorate, it's filled with management that was hired because they were friends/family of talent rather than actual talent.

It's usually at the moment when a company goes from privately owned to publicly traded or subsidiary status. This marks a paradigm shift. There's an influx of "professional" managers who gradually replace the old staff in a self-perpetuating drive to hire friends and trade favors. From then on, the company's actual goal is not profit or quality of products, but the well-being of the management staff. And this staff is evaluated and rewarded or fired in a yearly (or even sometimes quarterly) cycle, on the basis of often very stupid criteria. This system promotes acting very short-term, box-ticking and disregard for anything else. Enron would never happen without such mindset. And I guess that shitty releases like Warcraft III Reforged would also never happen without that.

Not saying it wasn't the case for Blizzard, but saying it's something that usually happen at the privately owned/publicly traded switch seems stupid to me, because once a company is public, its financial results are public and the owners are mostly focused on short-terms gains, not long-term sustainability like a private owner could be. The board won't care about the staff, just about the dividends and how valuable the shares are.

Which is what I have said, haven't I?

 

[Olinser]

Going to go out on a limb and guess that like most companies that deteriorate, it's filled with management that was hired because they were friends/family of talent rather than actual talent.

It's usually at the moment when a company goes from privately owned to publicly traded or subsidiary status. This marks a paradigm shift. There's an influx of "professional" managers who gradually replace the old staff in a self-perpetuating drive to hire friends and trade favors. From then on, the company's actual goal is not profit or quality of products, but the well-being of the management staff. And this staff is evaluated and rewarded or fired in a yearly (or even sometimes quarterly) cycle, on the basis of often very stupid criteria. This system promotes acting very short-term, box-ticking and disregard for anything else. Enron would never happen without such mindset. And I guess that shitty releases like Warcraft III Reforged would also never happen without that.

Not saying it wasn't the case for Blizzard, but saying it's something that usually happen at the privately owned/publicly traded switch seems stupid to me, because once a company is public, its financial results are public and the owners are mostly focused on short-terms gains, not long-term sustainability like a private owner could be. The board won't care about the staff, just about the dividends and how valuable the shares are.

The issue with companies like that is that there's a pretty respectable chance that the executives DID NOT know the game was pure shit.

The issue with long projects like that is that at a certain point, the managers are stuck. The mid level managers know they're not going to make the deadline and that its going to be a buggy mess. So in a corporate shithole like Activision they have basically 3 options:

1) Say that they can't make the deadline and probably get fired and replaced with somebody else

2) Release it in a bad state and count on being able to spin problems as 'unexpected' and that you can patch them out in a few months

3) Lie about it and count on the fact that when you release a shit project you can shift the blame to somebody else. Usually with weasel statements like, "I told my boss I needed more people to get the job done and he said no."

And since Activision is run by suits that have literally no way to actually evaluate for themselves if a game is good or bad, they're at the mercy of the managers telling them the truth.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

So, they're doing this to those of us that have classic CD keys and did not purchase Warcraft III: Retarded. Thanks for raping the game of my childhood all the way into my college years.



According to this poster on the Blizzard forums, you may be able to download the Public Test Realms client and enjoy the original game.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/w...classic-tft-now-everyone-come-read-d/16355/40

Link to PTR is here, per the Blizzard forum poster:

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/lega...500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement

 

[LabRat]

Good.

 

[Olinser]

So, they're doing this to those of us that have classic CD keys and did not purchase Warcraft III: Retarded. Thanks for raping the game of my childhood all the way into my college years.



According to this poster on the Blizzard forums, you may be able to download the Public Test Realms client and enjoy the original game.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/w...classic-tft-now-everyone-come-read-d/16355/40

Link to PTR is here, per the Blizzard forum poster:

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/lega...500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement

POINT OF ORDER.

The title should be "Life, uh, finds a way".

 

[Alex]

original wc3 artstyle is pretty shit too compared to wc2 ironically.

I agree with this.

Also, all the assholery aside, I don't fully understand the surprise and shock at blizz game looking like utter shit? Diablo 1 and Warcraft 2, their last good looking games, were already a couple of years ago, poor and outdated graphics are pretty much their forte for a long time now.

The style of WC3 was inferior to WC2 but the art itself was professional and high quality.

Same with Diablo 3. Shit style compared to the original, but you can't say the product doesn't feel expensive.

This, however, feels like some mod that was abandoned mid development.

I still remember my first thoughts on playing Warcraft 3 for the first time all those years ago. They were: "why does this look so ugly? It is almost as bad as Mario 64".

I suppose later on I got used to the graphics and they didn't get much in the way of the game, but it was still annoying and I can't understand what you've seen in them.

 

[Fedora Master]

How long until Blizzard in their wisdom and benevolence disables the ability to play WC3 Classic?

 

[Lyric Suite]

original wc3 artstyle is pretty shit too compared to wc2 ironically.

I agree with this.

Also, all the assholery aside, I don't fully understand the surprise and shock at blizz game looking like utter shit? Diablo 1 and Warcraft 2, their last good looking games, were already a couple of years ago, poor and outdated graphics are pretty much their forte for a long time now.

The style of WC3 was inferior to WC2 but the art itself was professional and high quality.

Same with Diablo 3. Shit style compared to the original, but you can't say the product doesn't feel expensive.

This, however, feels like some mod that was abandoned mid development.

I still remember my first thoughts on playing Warcraft 3 for the first time all those years ago. They were: "why does this look so ugly? It is almost as bad as Mario 64".

I suppose later on I got used to the graphics and they didn't get much in the way of the game, but it was still annoying and I can't understand what you've seen in them.

Mario 64? What are you, some kind of Zoomer?

The game was released during the age of early 3D. In no way the game looked any worse than other 3D releases from that time like Battle Realms or Empire Earth or Dark Reign 2 or what else was there back then, and in fact it looked better. The way the game moved, the variety in the terrain, all those little details they slapped everywhere. I remember when i loaded Battle Realms a few years ago i was shocked at how technically inferior it looked compared to Warcraft 3, where as back in 2002 they seemed comparable to me.

 

[Lyric Suite]

How long until Blizzard in their wisdom and benevolence disables the ability to play WC3 Classic?

They already have. Warcraft 3 "classic" is now basically Reforged with "retro" graphics.

 

[Fedora Master]

How long until Blizzard in their wisdom and benevolence disables the ability to play WC3 Classic?

They already have. Warcraft 3 "classic" is now basically Reforged with "retro" graphics.

So the version you can get from the PTR isn't even the real one? Fucking lol.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Ho, nevermind, that's what you meant when you said classic.

Of course they'll eventually block it.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Old meme but this has to be one of the best implementations of it to date.

 

[Alex]

original wc3 artstyle is pretty shit too compared to wc2 ironically.

I agree with this.

Also, all the assholery aside, I don't fully understand the surprise and shock at blizz game looking like utter shit? Diablo 1 and Warcraft 2, their last good looking games, were already a couple of years ago, poor and outdated graphics are pretty much their forte for a long time now.

The style of WC3 was inferior to WC2 but the art itself was professional and high quality.

Same with Diablo 3. Shit style compared to the original, but you can't say the product doesn't feel expensive.

This, however, feels like some mod that was abandoned mid development.

I still remember my first thoughts on playing Warcraft 3 for the first time all those years ago. They were: "why does this look so ugly? It is almost as bad as Mario 64".

I suppose later on I got used to the graphics and they didn't get much in the way of the game, but it was still annoying and I can't understand what you've seen in them.

Mario 64? What are you, some kind of Zoomer?

The game was released during the age of early 3D. In no way the game looked any worse than other 3D releases from that time like Battle Realms or Empire Earth or Dark Reign 2 or what else was there back then, and in fact it looked better. The way the game moved, the variety in the terrain, all those little details they slapped everywhere. I remember when i loaded Battle Realms a few years ago i was shocked at how technically inferior it looked compared to Warcraft 3, where as back in 2002 they seemed comparable to me.

Maybe you are right and it looked better than the 3d of the time. But it still was rather bad. People frequently say the older 3d aged badly, but I thought it was always bad, to be honest.

As for being a zoomer, I don't really know what that is. I thought about Mario 64 because both games had exaggerated bright colours and simple textures. It was what came to my mind at the time, so take that as you will.

 

[karoliner]

I love the Risitas meme format.

 

[Harthwain]

After Starcraft: Remastered I didn't expect Activision-Blizzard to fail at remastering Warcraft 3. How a rich company can do that - and fuck it up so meticulously - is beyond me.

The game was released during the age of early 3D. In no way the game looked any worse than other 3D releases from that time like Battle Realms or Empire Earth or Dark Reign 2 or what else was there back then, and in fact it looked better. The way the game moved, the variety in the terrain, all those little details they slapped everywhere. I remember when i loaded Battle Realms a few years ago i was shocked at how technically inferior it looked compared to Warcraft 3, where as back in 2002 they seemed comparable to me.

I always thought that Battle Realms withstood the test of time better than Warcraft 3.

 

[TedNugent]

After Starcraft: Remastered I didn't expect Activision-Blizzard to fail at remastering Warcraft 3. How a rich company can do that - and fuck it up so meticulously - is beyond me.

A lot of the "fuckups" were deliberate, greasy attempts to stick their dick in the eye of the community. Things like blocking all copyright content, claiming ownership of all intellectual property in the map editor, forcing everyone to switch over to their fucking retarded always online Battle.shit, eviscerating the chat and clan system, resetting portraits and ladder progress and integrating everything into their game launcher and global Battlenet profile were all intentional.

It's not about the game, it's about getting people on a network. They could not stand the fact that there was a popular game from nearly 20 years ago that people were playing on the old Battle.net. They want to retire that shit and force everyone into their Battleshit launcher.
Remember, the launcher is a virtual storefront where they sell digital goods, DLC, pre-order crap and other hokum and try to get you onto the global friends list so you can see what the cool kids are playing.

That's a big part of what the fan backlash is about. I doubt the game is as much of a shoddy, buggy, unplayable mess as people are making it out to be. And I frankly don't really give a shit about revamped cutscenes compared to removed framerate caps and native widescreen.

 

[MajorMace]

I wanna get off Mr. Blizzard's wild ride.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

After Starcraft: Remastered I didn't expect Activision-Blizzard to fail at remastering Warcraft 3. How a rich company can do that - and fuck it up so meticulously - is beyond me.

The game was released during the age of early 3D. In no way the game looked any worse than other 3D releases from that time like Battle Realms or Empire Earth or Dark Reign 2 or what else was there back then, and in fact it looked better. The way the game moved, the variety in the terrain, all those little details they slapped everywhere. I remember when i loaded Battle Realms a few years ago i was shocked at how technically inferior it looked compared to Warcraft 3, where as back in 2002 they seemed comparable to me.

I always thought that Battle Realms withstood the test of time better than Warcraft 3.

My theory is that they cut funding mid-development due to low pre-order numbers. Would explain the half-finished nature of the game. A huge mistake. People won't forget this.

I've been fortunate to be largely free from technical problems but even so, the game is a 7/10. Would be a 4 for sure if it kept crashing.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

People won't forget this.

blizzard fans are like goldfish
remember the hong kong shit only a few months ago? Yeah.

 

[Lacrymas]

After Starcraft: Remastered I didn't expect Activision-Blizzard to fail at remastering Warcraft 3. How a rich company can do that - and fuck it up so meticulously - is beyond me.

Like I said before, I suspected they wouldn't have been able to manage because WC3 has quite a lot of different models and assets that need to be changed, while contemporary AAA 3D graphics is the thing which takes the most time in game development. I doubt WC3 is a game which can be made as an AAA company today. How long did they work on this remaster? 3 years? And it's not done, they probably needed another 6 months, or even a year, to bring it up to snuff only on the graphics front, let alone remake all the in-game cutscenes. They could've probably made a new game (like WC4) in that time that will sell better. SC: Remaster and this can't be compared at all, it's much easier and faster to make 2D sprites. Whoever decided to remaster WC3 because of the SC remaster didn't know how games are made probably. If I were them, I'd have remastered WC1 or 2. More like 1 because 2 suffers from the naval combat too much.

 

[Absinthe]

How long until Blizzard in their wisdom and benevolence disables the ability to play WC3 Classic?

You have to use private BNET servers (search "PVPGN") or VLAN and manually patch WC3 to the last version before the reforged garbage set in.

 

[Harthwain]

A lot of the "fuckups" were deliberate, greasy attempts to stick their dick in the eye of the community. Things like blocking all copyright content, claiming ownership of all intellectual property in the map editor, forcing everyone to switch over to their fucking retarded always online Battle.shit, eviscerating the chat and clan system, resetting portraits and ladder progress and integrating everything into their game launcher and global Battlenet profile were all intentional.

It's not about the game, it's about getting people on a network. They could not stand the fact that there was a popular game from nearly 20 years ago that people were playing on the old Battle.net. They want to retire that shit and force everyone into their Battleshit launcher.
Remember, the launcher is a virtual storefront where they sell digital goods, DLC, pre-order crap and other hokum and try to get you onto the global friends list so you can see what the cool kids are playing.

That's a big part of what the fan backlash is about. I doubt the game is as much of a shoddy, buggy, unplayable mess as people are making it out to be. And I frankly don't really give a shit about revamped cutscenes compared to removed framerate caps and native widescreen.

Frankly, I don't think they could've done much more damage even if they tried to actively sabotage the whole project.

If I were them, I'd have remastered WC1 or 2. More like 1 because 2 suffers from the naval combat too much.

Naval combat made land-sea maps more interesting than pure land-locked scenarios.

 

[Jaedar]

People won't forget this.

blizzard fans are like goldfish
remember the hong kong shit only a few months ago? Yeah.

I think a large part of the reason this shit is backfiring so horribly is that people do remember the hong kong stuff.

 

[Reinhardt]

Kotick should just fire everyone and rehire oldfags. Make Blizzard small again.

 

[Lacrymas]

Naval combat made land-sea maps more interesting than pure land-locked scenarios.

It added tedious building of transport ships and nothing else basically. It needlessly slows down the game, there's a reason they removed it in WC3 (it's still technically there, but outside of a few instances in the campaigns only like 1 pvp map nobody plays on uses it and the AI gets borked there). I've talked to a lot of people about this and they all basically agree the naval combat is not only extraneous, but actively detrimental.