|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Beta signup time...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: beanrick
What time is that in eastern time?
Not big on the whole timezone thing.
Thanks
Posted by: SKYHN
11pm Pacific = 2am Eastern
Posted by: beanrick
Thanks
Posted by: Bobaroo
Yea it sucks...to late...
I will sign up tommorrow.
Est time +3hrs on Pacific time
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Now let's see if my lucky stars won't fail me ...
Posted by: Swilo
*Throws a box of cereal at laggy*
Eat up!
Posted by: Spork Lover
Am I the only one who didnt feel compelled to sign up for this?
Posted by: Kdr Kane
No, Spork Lover.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
What's cool about the beta sign up is, 5000 people will soon know just how much WC3 sucks and tell the rest of us. 
From what I understand, it looks dated like D2 did.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Well, I felt compelled to sign up because, since OTS is directly linked from Blizzard's support page, it is almost an obligation to see if we can test this game and offer possible support to other beta testers.
I saw WarCraft III in E3 last year. It ain't really that bad, all things considered. What I'm counting on is that it has a good story, like all other Blizzard games.
As for gameplay, I guess you would have to ask Spider about it - he spent almost all his time in the Blizzard booths playing the damn thing 
Posted by: Gunslinger
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
What's cool about the beta sign up is, 5000 people will soon know just how much WC3 sucks and tell the rest of us.
From what I understand, it looks dated like D2 did.
|
"Looks" dated?
If it's fun, what does it matter what it looks like?
We'll find out, I suppose.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Normally that's true but almost all RTS games play the same or similiar. I got a lot more enjoyment playing AoE than Warcraft 2 for example. Mainly because the detail was tons better. You got more of the feel of building a civilization instead a bunch of cartoonish buildings and characters.
I have played some damn fun games with little or no detail. But generally a poor looking game removes the awe effect of the game.
The only thing Blizzard can do right now is make good cinematics IMO. I think they lost too much of their good programming talent.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Eh. You're entitled I guess.
I try not to rate games against eachother. For instance, what you commented about AoE and Warcraft 2. It can easily be said that AoE had much finer detail visually - and as far as the amount of stuff that you could do, it was more complex. But I spent many a long hour in front of Warcraft 2 as well.
Theyn were fun. To avoid being judgemental about everything, I just play what's fun - I guess.
Yes. Blizzard did lose a lot of their programming talent. I remember Mike O'Brien and a few other senior programmers leaving to form their own company. I can't wait to see what they have to produce in the coming years. I believe their first release, totally unannounced in the sense that nobody knows anything except there will be a game released, was slated for sometime in 2003.
Anyway. I'm drifting.
Posted by: Spider
Siskels-all-around for gameplay at E3
I especially liked the zoom feature it had, you could get close up with one unit a la diablo or zoom out and have your entire encampment in your view like the old warcrafts, and the actual 3D terrain is sweet not stepped levels like in StarCraft oh and also when I asked one of the programmers/techs (who ever he was) about resolutions, he said multiple.
however they have made a bunch of major changes since then (like the removal of an entire race for example) but I still think that it's going to kickass, and of course I've signed up for the beta, I've been itching for War3 since last May lol.
|
|
|
|
|
