It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionBlizzard "will consider" Warcraft 4(81 posts)(81 posts)
(81 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
darthspudius: Still to try out Starcraft 2. Those prices... ouch.
avatar
Elenarie: 20 EUR is too much?

You get the whole trilogy for 60 now.
avatar
hedwards: Considering what they did to both SC and Diablo, I sincerely hope this is just a rumor.
avatar
Elenarie: Yea, how dare they turn them into the most sucessful RTS and H&S ARPG games of all time.
avatar
Avogadro6: It's just hype talk, folks. Nothing to get excited about.
avatar
Elenarie: Exactly. Starcraft 2 will have a stronK eSports scene for at least 5 more years with LotV. WoW will keep running for at least 5 more years. The RTS market is next to dead nowadays. SC2 is the only successful RTS game in the last several years.

It may happen, but it will not be in this decade.
Theyre making 3 games out of what should of been one. I'm not paying for that!
Posted August 13, 2015
After what they did to StarCraft's lore and world in SC2 (and most of the books) - retcons, etc, SC3 better not happen unless Metzen is fired and/or Blizzard hires competent writers (yeah, right). Their last decent game was Warcraft 3 TFT.
Posted August 13, 2015
I didn't bought/play anything blizard related since W3TFT:
-never liked sc anyway;
-didn't even tried d3 when a superb free alternative exists: Path of Exile;
-mmo? get out of here ;) wouldn't touch it for anything in the world.

A W4 classic RTS game would tickle my interest but not with online only crap and no-LAN possibility.

I guess will see ...
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Wishbone: I don't want a Warcraft 4, I want a Warcraft 2.5. I loved Warcraft 2 and hated the direction Warcraft 3 took.
WC3 actually had a really good campaign though, WC2's campaign was pretty generic
Posted August 13, 2015
I personally think they have milked dry the cow of plot, so I can't possibly imagine what the plot will be for a new Warcraft.
On the other hand, online gaming (especially arenas) can go on with a minimal plot (or even without plot)........
Posted August 13, 2015
hard for WC4 not to be a steaming pile of shit after all the retcons in WoW.
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Acriz: After the crap they wrote for World of Warcraft and Diablo 3, I doubt a Warcraft 4 would be as good as Warcraft 3 TFT in regards to the story. I have low expectations.
avatar
Elmofongo: I did not though D3 was that badly written a story when I played it. And seriously I was expecting the worst, must bullshit reasons to continue the story after what happened in the end of D2 and I thought the story I got was alright.
It was mainly the shift from "adventurers finding adventure" to "You are the chosen one, only you can save the day!". You stopped being a human, that lucked out against the odds and did the impossible in defeating forces far greater than you. In D3 you are a supreme being, more than human, destined to be the strongest being in the world.
They went from a gritty sword and sorcery setting to a high fantasy power wish fulfillment.
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Acriz: They went from a gritty sword and sorcery setting to a high fantasy power wish fulfillment.
Well, being the Chosen One isn't always all it's cracked up to be...
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
darthspudius: Still to try out Starcraft 2. Those prices... ouch.
avatar
GlorFindel: Well, that's Blizzard alright! Their prices are not overrated from the beginning, but they keep them this way for long, very long and they have very rare discounts, so try to hit one since then games are 50% off!

For Example: I bought Diablo 3 on day one and it was 60 € and Reaper of Souls was 40 € and now D3 is 20 € but RoS is still 40 €
And old games are 10 € a piece (Diablo 2, LoD, WC3, WC3TFT) + SC:Anthology is 15 €
I know, Blizzard prices for old games are way too high, although their prices for newer ones are about right (£16.99 GBP for Sc2 WoL and the same for HotS. However, unfortunately, their prices for older games are worse (£14 for a 15 year old game, Diablo 2 + Reaper of souls which of course you have to buy separately so Blizzard gets as much of your money as possible, only exception is Starcraft + Expansion together for £10 which is still too high considering the game is 17 years old.) and sales are rare and when they do happen, the discount is max 50%, so they aren't havily discounted either.
Post edited August 13, 2015 by sherringon456
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Wishbone: I don't want a Warcraft 4, I want a Warcraft 2.5. I loved Warcraft 2 and hated the direction Warcraft 3 took.
avatar
Crosmando: WC3 actually had a really good campaign though, WC2's campaign was pretty generic
I confess that I disagree. The level design in WC3 was horrible. It wasn't a matter of strategy, but of having foreknowledge of the future. The scripted events in the campaign missions in many cases required you to react to them before they happened in order to win the mission. As such, you had to play the same mission over and over again to learn what happened where at what time. In an RTS, that is piss-poor level design in my book.
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Crosmando: WC3 actually had a really good campaign though, WC2's campaign was pretty generic
avatar
Wishbone: I confess that I disagree. The level design in WC3 was horrible. It wasn't a matter of strategy, but of having foreknowledge of the future. The scripted events in the campaign missions in many cases required you to react to them before they happened in order to win the mission. As such, you had to play the same mission over and over again to learn what happened where at what time. In an RTS, that is piss-poor level design in my book.
For example the Battle at Mount Hyjal. I thought you could actually destroy the undead base. But nope it is scripted that the Orc and Human base must be destroyed.

But still what really carried the campaign was the story and presentation. Remember that this game was going to be a RPG (the hero system) and than later add RTS elements like Base Building.

Also Warcraft 2 is hard as balls especially the expansion.
Posted August 13, 2015
I was actually referring to the story, WC2 is mostly Human vs Orc storyline, WC3 is way more expansive storywise
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Wishbone: I confess that I disagree. The level design in WC3 was horrible. It wasn't a matter of strategy, but of having foreknowledge of the future. The scripted events in the campaign missions in many cases required you to react to them before they happened in order to win the mission. As such, you had to play the same mission over and over again to learn what happened where at what time. In an RTS, that is piss-poor level design in my book.
avatar
Elmofongo: For example the Battle at Mount Hyjal. I thought you could actually destroy the undead base. But nope it is scripted that the Orc and Human base must be destroyed.

But still what really carried the campaign was the story and presentation. Remember that this game was going to be a RPG (the hero system) and than later add RTS elements like Base Building.

Also Warcraft 2 is hard as balls especially the expansion.
Not true actually, I managed to beat that level with the Orc base intact. That was on normal though.
Posted August 13, 2015
Let's face it: you will have to pay for each faction campaign and you will have to wait for 2 years between each one.

And maybe with HeartStone-like microtransactions.


Sometimes, I wonder why C&C4 was so critisized when I see how SC2 was acclaimed.
Posted August 13, 2015
avatar
Crosmando: I was actually referring to the story, WC2 is mostly Human vs Orc storyline, WC3 is way more expansive storywise
And its cinematics looks like something out of the Beast Wars cartoon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNUIMxTURbM
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionBlizzard "will consider" Warcraft 4(81 posts)(81 posts)
(81 posts)