Debaser wrote:While it's obvious that you dislike Warcraft 3, I think it's safe to assume that you think Warcraft 2 is a good game. This, too, is a fundamentally flawed belief, much like a belief in fairies, or aliens, or [three point switch gag].
Hi! I'm a fish. A water-breathin' circus pogey of the highest pedigree. I've come up for air! I came up for air, and saw THIS strewn about on land.
Why, it's enough to spoil your continental breakfast. It's enough to write off land dwellers as Not Worth The Bother. It's enough to proclaim this "land lover" thing as a reprehensible offshoot of evolution that will certainly cause only malaise and suffering for every creature on the planet.
At least, it will when statements like "Warcraft II isn't a good game" is made by its denizens.
Now, I understand there is a line of thinking out there that if one game comes out that pioneers a concept and then another, more polished but otherwise very similair game comes out later that the former game is still the better one.
Yes! This is true. This must be true, because otherwise human beings would not value innovation and our lives would be cruel pantomimes of that of the brown-skinned prey people in H.G. Wells' feature film from a couple years back "The Time Machine."
Not for
my race, Debaser! (I'm no longer a pogey, any more, by the way.)
However, sometimes the second or third thing to come out really is a better game. Doom wasn't the original first person shooter, but it's better than Wolfenstein 3D. Zork is better than Advent. Boon-ga Boon-ga is better than a real-life rectal exam. It happens, every once in a while.
Even a moment's rational thought can expose this as a fallacy, but I believe your problems run deeper still.
A... fallacy!?
"I disagree, your excellency." -- Trade Advisor, Civ II
I disagree, Debaser. I disagree, because it's easy for someone to take a pre-established concept and say, "You should do
this with it." Anyone can do that. I'll do it. Watch me. OK? Watch me do it... seriously! Come on.
Ahem.
"They should have put a grainy oldtime movie picture filter on Resident Evil." -- Robb Sherwin
Ah-ha! I did it! And, as it turns out, they're gonna do just that for one of the new Silent Hill games. Congrats. (Silent Hill, the original one, isn't as good as Resident Evil, the original one, by the way, even though it really is. It just isn't.)
... I fear that my point may have been lost in all this. I am just saying that I prize innovation. Usually.
Warcraft 2 did not pioneer the concept of Real Time Strategy.
True! I would say that it made outstanding contributions to each one of the particulars that make up a RTS game, though. To wit:
Real: Oh, yes! Warcraft II definitely "keeps it real" by putting humans in there with orcs, elves, gnomes and dwarves. Aragorn is some half-elf wunderprince that lived for 200 years. Jones to Tolkien:
Not human enough, maggot! Ditto the Bible.
Time: Warcraft II sucked away an enormous amount of time from me. Maybe Dune II could have done it, except that we'll never know because it's kind of shitty. Let's ask Q and A for their help on this.
Q: Is Dune II kind of a shitty game, even though it's first?
A: Acknowledged!
Q: Heh?
A:
Moving out!
Q: Hahahahahahahah!
A: ... Nyaaah-hahahahahaha!!!!
Strategy: Yeah, I don't really remember how great the "strategy" was in WC2. I remember that the female elves led to great "strategy" as in, "How can I have an entire squadron of girl elves without my girlfriend who is logged into a 16-channel bulletin board in the next room finding out?"
I think, on some level, you must realize this. I mean it is called Warcraft 2 after all.
Yes, but if you are ignoring Dune then you have to let me ignore Warcraft.
The reason for it's enduring and peculiar popularity is that it just happens to be the first RTS to come out with an intuitive, useable interface.
It had a nice demo, as well, that everyone could get and play the hell out of. I'd say that aside from the Doom and Duke Nukem 3D demo, the WC2 demo was the most important demo of our time.
In other words, it's very similair to Warcraft 1, Dune 2, and probably some other, lesser known early RTS, only more polished.
Yes, but it's still a lot more fun. Plus, it looks nicer. Dune II always made me feel like I was getting suburned when I was playing it. If I wanted to feel like I was getting a tan, I'd go outside.
And what's worse, Warcraft 2 is in all meaningful ways (other than interface and presentation) a step backwards from its forefathers. Dune 2 had three different "sides", all of which had unique strengths and weaknesses.
No! WC2 is a step up! It's a step up, because they ignored that silly rock-scissors-paper thing, and just went with ROCK and PAPER. (Or maybe SCISSORS. But not all three.)
Who fights wars where there are three sides involved? Not humans. Here's a brief primer on war:
World War I: Allies vs Axis
World War II: Allies vs Axis
Viet Nam War: France vs Viet Nam
Viet Nam War 2.0: USA vs Viet Nam
French Revolution: Unwashed vs Washed
Genghis Khan's Super Real Time Adventures: Mongolia vs World
CaveWars IV: Thrackscogs vs Hrrrrrnnggggagathons
War, unless you're talking about war in Africa, which nobody really understands, is like a Hall and Oates single. Very One-on-One.
The evil red guys (I no longer remember the names of the different Houses)
This is because Dune II isn't very memorable. =(
Now, let's compare this to Warcraft 3. Better graphics and sound, more polished interface.
The graphics are brighter, but are they better? I at least knew what was going on in WC2 at all times. I hate the graphics in WC3.
Better storyline.
I don't really play these things for the story.
Three sides, each with their own unique units. No boats or transport units of any kind.
No boats? Ohhh, dear. Ooooh dear this isn't good.
Resurrectable heroes. This is quite clearly the superior game. Someone who'd never played a single RTS in their life could read an FAQ for each game and arrive at that conclusion.
It is a mess, though. There's a bunch of nonsense on the screen. It's too busy. Less is more when it comes to moving my dudes around. It's like when I did that one picture for the Awful Forums trying to depict Icewind Dale for the Atari 2600 -- Pinback said, "Well, at least I can figure out what the hell is going on out there in the 2600 version."
Doesn't anyone fight during the day in Warcraft III?
Why are things so gloomy and depressing?
And you're disagreeing based on having played Warcraft 3's opening tutorial mission and not particularly like it?
Actually, RTS as a whole is pretty much played out in 2004. I'm sort of sick of all new RTS games, to be honest with you. I hope that doesn't invalidate my entire post; I tried to make it entertaining before this terrible conclusion that we all knew was coming came.
[quote="Debaser"]While it's obvious that you dislike Warcraft 3, I think it's safe to assume that you think Warcraft 2 is a good game. This, too, is a fundamentally flawed belief, much like a belief in fairies, or aliens, or [three point switch gag].[/quote]
Hi! I'm a fish. A water-breathin' circus pogey of the highest pedigree. I've come up for air! I came up for air, and saw THIS strewn about on land.
Why, it's enough to spoil your continental breakfast. It's enough to write off land dwellers as Not Worth The Bother. It's enough to proclaim this "land lover" thing as a reprehensible offshoot of evolution that will certainly cause only malaise and suffering for every creature on the planet.
At least, it will when statements like "Warcraft II isn't a good game" is made by its denizens.
[quote]Now, I understand there is a line of thinking out there that if one game comes out that pioneers a concept and then another, more polished but otherwise very similair game comes out later that the former game is still the better one.[/quote]
Yes! This is true. This must be true, because otherwise human beings would not value innovation and our lives would be cruel pantomimes of that of the brown-skinned prey people in H.G. Wells' feature film from a couple years back "The Time Machine."
Not for [i]my[/i] race, Debaser! (I'm no longer a pogey, any more, by the way.)
However, sometimes the second or third thing to come out really is a better game. Doom wasn't the original first person shooter, but it's better than Wolfenstein 3D. Zork is better than Advent. Boon-ga Boon-ga is better than a real-life rectal exam. It happens, every once in a while.
[quote]Even a moment's rational thought can expose this as a fallacy, but I believe your problems run deeper still.[/quote]
A... fallacy!?
"I disagree, your excellency." -- Trade Advisor, Civ II
I disagree, Debaser. I disagree, because it's easy for someone to take a pre-established concept and say, "You should do [i]this[/i] with it." Anyone can do that. I'll do it. Watch me. OK? Watch me do it... seriously! Come on.
Ahem.
"They should have put a grainy oldtime movie picture filter on Resident Evil." -- Robb Sherwin
Ah-ha! I did it! And, as it turns out, they're gonna do just that for one of the new Silent Hill games. Congrats. (Silent Hill, the original one, isn't as good as Resident Evil, the original one, by the way, even though it really is. It just isn't.)
... I fear that my point may have been lost in all this. I am just saying that I prize innovation. Usually.
[quote]Warcraft 2 did not pioneer the concept of Real Time Strategy.[/quote]
True! I would say that it made outstanding contributions to each one of the particulars that make up a RTS game, though. To wit:
Real: Oh, yes! Warcraft II definitely "keeps it real" by putting humans in there with orcs, elves, gnomes and dwarves. Aragorn is some half-elf wunderprince that lived for 200 years. Jones to Tolkien: [i]Not human enough, maggot![/i] Ditto the Bible.
Time: Warcraft II sucked away an enormous amount of time from me. Maybe Dune II could have done it, except that we'll never know because it's kind of shitty. Let's ask Q and A for their help on this.
Q: Is Dune II kind of a shitty game, even though it's first?
A: Acknowledged!
Q: Heh?
A: [i][b]Moving out![/i][/b]
Q: Hahahahahahahah!
A: ... Nyaaah-hahahahahaha!!!!
Strategy: Yeah, I don't really remember how great the "strategy" was in WC2. I remember that the female elves led to great "strategy" as in, "How can I have an entire squadron of girl elves without my girlfriend who is logged into a 16-channel bulletin board in the next room finding out?"
[quote]I think, on some level, you must realize this. I mean it [i]is[/i] called Warcraft [b]2[/b] after all. [/quote]
Yes, but if you are ignoring Dune then you have to let me ignore Warcraft.
[quote]The reason for it's enduring and peculiar popularity is that it just happens to be the first RTS to come out with an intuitive, useable interface.[/quote]
It had a nice demo, as well, that everyone could get and play the hell out of. I'd say that aside from the Doom and Duke Nukem 3D demo, the WC2 demo was the most important demo of our time.
[quote]In other words, it's very similair to Warcraft 1, Dune 2, and probably some other, lesser known early RTS, [i]only more polished[/i].[/quote]
Yes, but it's still a lot more fun. Plus, it looks nicer. Dune II always made me feel like I was getting suburned when I was playing it. If I wanted to feel like I was getting a tan, I'd go outside.
[quote]And what's worse, Warcraft 2 is in all meaningful ways (other than interface and presentation) a step [i]backwards[/i] from its forefathers. Dune 2 had three different "sides", all of which had unique strengths and weaknesses.[/quote]
No! WC2 is a step up! It's a step up, because they ignored that silly rock-scissors-paper thing, and just went with ROCK and PAPER. (Or maybe SCISSORS. But not all three.)
Who fights wars where there are three sides involved? Not humans. Here's a brief primer on war:
World War I: Allies vs Axis
World War II: Allies vs Axis
Viet Nam War: France vs Viet Nam
Viet Nam War 2.0: USA vs Viet Nam
French Revolution: Unwashed vs Washed
Genghis Khan's Super Real Time Adventures: Mongolia vs World
CaveWars IV: Thrackscogs vs Hrrrrrnnggggagathons
War, unless you're talking about war in Africa, which nobody really understands, is like a Hall and Oates single. Very One-on-One.
[quote]The evil red guys (I no longer remember the names of the different Houses)[/quote]
This is because Dune II isn't very memorable. =(
[quote]Now, let's compare this to Warcraft 3. Better graphics and sound, more polished interface.[/quote]
The graphics are brighter, but are they better? I at least knew what was going on in WC2 at all times. I hate the graphics in WC3.
[quote]Better storyline.[/quote]
I don't really play these things for the story.
[quote]Three sides, each with their own unique units. No boats or transport units of any kind.[/quote]
No boats? Ohhh, dear. Ooooh dear this isn't good.
[quote]Resurrectable heroes. This is quite clearly the superior game. Someone who'd never played a single RTS in their life could read an FAQ for each game and arrive at that conclusion.[/quote]
It is a mess, though. There's a bunch of nonsense on the screen. It's too busy. Less is more when it comes to moving my dudes around. It's like when I did that one picture for the Awful Forums trying to depict Icewind Dale for the Atari 2600 -- Pinback said, "Well, at least I can figure out what the hell is going on out there in the 2600 version."
Doesn't anyone fight during the day in Warcraft III?
Why are things so gloomy and depressing?
[quote]And you're disagreeing based on having played Warcraft 3's opening tutorial mission and not particularly like it?[/quote]
Actually, RTS as a whole is pretty much played out in 2004. I'm sort of sick of all new RTS games, to be honest with you. I hope that doesn't invalidate my entire post; I tried to make it entertaining before this terrible conclusion that we all knew was coming came.