Was Warcraft 3 historically considered bad?

[Seethe]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

 

[ArchAngel]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

Maybe you are just young but WC2 MP was very popular in its time.

 

[Zeriel]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

Maybe you are just young but WC2 MP was very popular in its time.

He's the sort of idiot who thinks Prometheus was the first movie in the Aliens series. The whole reason WC3 could be a hit in the first place was because people cared a lot about the series and Blizzard.

 

[Harthwain]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

Maybe you are just young but WC2 MP was very popular in its time.

I liked the campaign of Warcraft 2.

 

[Grunker]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

nigga wat

wc2 was like the biggest thing among the game-interested kids at my school

kids with no computers wanted one for wc2

 

[MWaser]

Warcraft 2 was quite popular when it came out but it didn't really stick around very long after Starcraft came out. Warcraft 3 definitely stood out for much longer due to the heavy custom map support drawing extra attention.

 

[Seethe]

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

Maybe you are just young but WC2 MP was very popular in its time.

What is its time? Before Starcraft 1 launched. The former didn't even have a competitive scene.

You could say the decline already started with WarIII, although on a high note.

Cartoonish graphics, a story and characters tailored towards teenagers.... nah.

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game, and the third game is massively superior from every point of view, yes including the art style. The world editor alone makes it one of the greatest classics. I wonder if codexers suffer from chronic shit opinions due to their Eastern European brains (such as ELEX and other Pyranha Bytes diseases being considered fantastic RPGs ) or is it just a matter of stubborn contrarianism.

Maybe you are just young but WC2 MP was very popular in its time.

He's the sort of idiot who thinks Prometheus was the first movie in the Aliens series. The whole reason WC3 could be a hit in the first place was because people cared a lot about the series and Blizzard.

Warcraft 3 was popular because of Blizzard's success alright. And it was mostly because of Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, not because of Warcraft 2. There's a reason you see all these three games: Warcraft 3, Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2 still mentioned and played today, but no one gives a shit about Warcraft 2 since the late 90's after Starcraft launched. Obviously people "cared about it" when it launched, but what was its staying in power?

 

[Harthwain]

Warcraft 3 was popular because of Blizzard's success alright. And it was mostly because of Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, not because of Warcraft 2.

Warcraft 3 was popular not "because of Blizzard's success" or "mostly because of Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2". It became popular thanks to its extensive and varied campaigns, shaked up the RTS formula (by adding heroes into the mix) and varied gameplay per race (and great modding capabilities via map editor). In short: Warcraft 3 stood on its own. What it took from Warcraft 2 was mostly the setting (the races, some heroes, etc.).

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Jebus christ, those retarded revisionistic takes... As if the extent of Warcraft's 2 success was some sort of esoteric knowledge that ain't measurable.

But a game from the same genre from the same company that came out 3 years later overtook it!!!! What sorcery is this, can someone explain this phenomenon???

 

[Seethe]

Warcraft 3 was popular because of Blizzard's success alright. And it was mostly because of Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, not because of Warcraft 2.

Warcraft 3 was popular not "because of Blizzard's success" or "mostly because of Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2". It became popular thanks to its extensive and varied campaigns, shaked up the RTS formula (by adding heroes into the mix) and varied gameplay per race (and great modding capabilities via map editor). In short: Warcraft 3 stood on its own. What it took from Warcraft 2 was mostly the setting (the races, some heroes, etc.).

You should reply this to the other guy, I do believe this myself. I only mentioned that in the given context. Obviously Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2 DID have some impact on Warcraft 3's sales. I feel like people are moving the goalposts.

But a game from the same genre from the same company that came out 3 years later overtook it!!!! What sorcery is this, can someone explain this phenomenon???

Yeah. It's called "one game is clearly superior to the other". I'm not sure what is your retarded sarcasm supposed to prove. Should I believe that it's "completely normal" for this to be the case? I guess Stormgate should be at least 10 times better than Starcraft 1 or Warcraft 3, because it came out over two decades later after all. IT'S TWENTY YEAR GUYS!!! WOAH! What a shock that it performed worse even though it came AFTER, right?

Again, no one cared about Warcraft 2 after Starcraft 1 came out. People still cared about Starcraft 1 after Warcraft 3 came out. There were still pro scenes, there were still tournaments, there still are small time tournaments even today. It's really not rocket science to draw the conclusions for yourself here.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

So you feel like "people are moving the goalposts", huh?

No one gives a shit or even gave a shit about any of the Warcraft 3 games other than the third game

Already managed to check the wikipedia or is is still wip?

 

[cvv]

wc2 was like the biggest thing among the game-interested kids at my school

My school was all over C&C and I hated that because I vastly preferred W2 and p. much nobody else cared. Plus the C&C brand had subsequent releases in the next few years and everyone p. much forgot all about W2.

Until Starcraft 1 rolled in and suddenly nobody played anything else.

I'm reading Tiberian Sun was p. popular too but I could swear I barely heard anything about it back then. Everyone was obsessed with S1 first and then many people switched to W3.

And that was the last hurrah for the RTS genre, a few years later it all but depopulated, everyone moved to RPGs and shooters and sports.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Warcraft 2 is what made Blizzard huge. I guess you had to be there to remember?

It was also huge in LAN, more so than C&C, it's main competitor.

They didn't really dominate online play until Battle.net but Blizzard were already a major company before that.

Hell, there was even a brief time when people thought StarCraft was going to be decline, calling it a Warcraft 2 reskin when the first images popped up in previews.

 

[Gandalf]

Hell, there was even a brief time when people thought StarCraft was going to be decline, calling it a Warcraft 2 reskin when the first images popped up in previews.

Yeah, because Starcraft alpha looked like a Warcraft 2 reskin.

 

[MWaser]

But a game from the same genre from the same company that came out 3 years later overtook it!!!! What sorcery is this, can someone explain this phenomenon???

The fact that it got completely phased out is noteworthy, no matter how much you want to pretend that it doesn't change anything in retrospect - after all, you have to consider that Warcraft 3 did not phase Starcraft out the way Starcraft phased Warcraft 2 out, because they were completely different but both completely functional.

The point that neither Warcraft 1 nor Warcraft 2 could stay in relevance is a distinct argument, even if the reasoning for it could be as simple as the fact that they got replaced by something distinctly more playable, battle.net aside. After all, it's not like the Warcraft 2 Battle.net edition could once again match the later success. Some things simply stay in standard of playability while others will be considered antiquated. There's no predictable standard for it, just what the public vaguely feels.

 

[Hellraiser]

I'm reading Tiberian Sun was p. popular too but I could swear I barely heard anything about it back then. Everyone was obsessed with S1 first and then many people switched to W3.

From what I remember Tiberian Sun got panned by the press and masses at the time essentially for not being another Starcraft, which along with Quake 2 (and not that much later Q3 and UT) dominated the internet cafes of the time. This is a very Polish perspective though. Still, I think it wasn't that different from the West, unlike say seeing people play HoMM3 in internet cafes which is more of a slav phenomenon IMO.

There were also other reasons mentioned, as it was also called gimmicky and some changes compared to TD/RA were not received well (the hard cap on the mammoth mk. II/hero units for instance, people liked mammoth spam), some didn't like the setting/aesthetic changes, but I figure the main problem was really the multiplayer. Multiplayer was in vogue back then and Starcraft was the first RTS to capture that market on a massive scale due to Blizzard learning very well from the shit they caught when they revealed the already posted on this page "warcraft in space" builds of SC to the world (Artanis' joke about it isn't in BW by accident).

There was already Blizzard fanboyism involved as well, not just in the commie block 'hood, but also in the PC gaming mags of potatoland.

TS was difficult to play over LAN for some reason, by that I mean the early versions of the game just after release had some absurd issue with disconnecting people over LAN 10+ minutes into the match and replacing them with AI (no waiting to reconnect option, just a fuck you, you play skirmish now) despite using legit disks. This didn't help, even if quite honestly there was no way it could have went toe to toe with SC in those days.

People who liked RTS still played TS, but it was very much a singleplayer phenomenon and thus not as in your face as Starcraft being on half of the CRT monitors in an internet cafe.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

There's literally nothing "noteworthy" about it, mostly because multiplayer landscape at the time of W2's release was completely different and because SC was basically a direct follow up from the same company a couple years later that was "the same, but more of it and better". This has zero impact on the fact that W2 was a gigantic success sales-wise and released to overwhelmingly positive reception from both gamers and critics. Which is something absolutely obvious to anyone with absolute minimum knowledge about PC gaming and to claim otherwise (let alone dropping "no one gave a shit about it" truth bombs) is completely retarded.

SC "phased out" multiple contemporary RTS games, which often had better presentation, tech, innovative and interesting mechanics etc. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of these games were objectively a success. But it also phased out its more simplistic predecessor from a few years earlier. Again: omg, let's ponder on this for a while.

 

[Multidirectional]

I didn't have a PC until 2003 and even I knew Warcraft 2 was popular. Kids at school and the ones I played outside with wouldn't shut up about it back then.

 

[ArchAngel]

But a game from the same genre from the same company that came out 3 years later overtook it!!!! What sorcery is this, can someone explain this phenomenon???

The fact that it got completely phased out is noteworthy, no matter how much you want to pretend that it doesn't change anything in retrospect - after all, you have to consider that Warcraft 3 did not phase Starcraft out the way Starcraft phased Warcraft 2 out, because they were completely different but both completely functional.

The point that neither Warcraft 1 nor Warcraft 2 could stay in relevance is a distinct argument, even if the reasoning for it could be as simple as the fact that they got replaced by something distinctly more playable, battle.net aside. After all, it's not like the Warcraft 2 Battle.net edition could once again match the later success. Some things simply stay in standard of playability while others will be considered antiquated. There's no predictable standard for it, just what the public vaguely feels.

Warcraft 3 did phase out Starcraft everywhere but Korea.

 

[Alex]

I never understood W3's popularity. That game looked so ugly and played much worse than starcraft.

 

[Lacrymas]

I never understood W3's popularity. That game looked so ugly and played much worse than starcraft.

Smaller army sizes make it more playable for the majority of people (which is true today too).

 

[JarlFrank]

I played Warcraft 2 long after Age of Empires and Star Craft and it felt very primitive and basic in comparison. The campaign missions felt a little boring too, most were very straightforward and the early ones were very slow in giving you new toys to play with, it takes a long time until the campaign actually becomes good. Also controls and pathfinding were far worse than later RTS games.

Still, I recognize its popularity at the time it came out and understand why it happened. It was a solid RTS for its time, but was easily surpassed by later ones. Doesn't make it any less solid for its time, especially in multiplayer.
"It sucks now compared to what came later so it was never popular" is a retard take.

 

[Lacrymas]

The biggest issue in WC2 for me is the campaign's focus on navies/water maps. It makes the entire campaign such a huge slog, so much so I've never been able to complete it.

 

[Storyfag]

The biggest issue in WC2 for me is the campaign's focus on navies/water maps. It makes the entire campaign such a huge slog, so much so I've never been able to complete it.

I thought you of all people would enjoy the naval maps. Y'know, the rum, the lashings, and the sodomy...

 

[Hellraiser]

WC3 removing naval warfare and scaling back army size/micro focus was a huge disappointment for me when it came out. I liked drilling for oil with orcs, damn it.