|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
So what makes WC3 different?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Null Actor
Is there anything that separates WC3 from being starcraft + warcraft + different graphics?
Cause I remember blizzard cutting a game I was very much looking forward too, for the reason 'that it wasn't anything new'.
Of course, I suppose they like the biz of making clones nowadays. Keeps them rich, without having to worry about things like professional integrity and dedication to making quality games.
Posted by: Maverick
Do you have the beta?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Well, I'm doing a first-look article on War3 Beta, but here are my first impressions:
1.) The graphics are great, and if you invested on a "more-than-decent" video card, you're gonna get your money's worth.
2.) The two new races (Undead and Night Elves) are so different from the Humans and Orcs, it requires a whole new style of playing.
3.) The Humans and Orcs, unfortunately, are almost the same way they were with Warcraft II, with the addition of a few new units and special abilities. I expect the other two races (Undead & Night Elves) to get played more than the original two mentioned.
4.) The thing that makes it different from Warcraft II or even Starcraft (aside from the new Races), is the role of the Hero. Your hero can make or break the game if he has gained a high enough level.
5.) Warcraft III, I have noticed, is not too defense-oriented - we don't see as much defensive structures or units as we did in Starcraft or Warcraft II ... however, the defenses structures themselves are pretty interesting:
The Orcs have their burrows (which act like the Terran Bunkers in SC); the Humans have their mandatory guard towers, the Night Elves have their defensive buildfing (which acts like the Zerg Lurker in SC); and the Undead have their ziggurats (which are actually their farms, but can be upgraded to be spirit towers that can emit damaging rays for defense). With the Undead, you can actually feel comfortable blocking a choke point with "farms", since these farms can be upgraded to defense structures.
6.) There are a lot of unique little abilities introduced by Blizzard in Warcraft III. I'll write on that later...
All in all, it was an interesting game to play. I expect to play it some more in order to see which race and/or units might prove too powerful or unbalanced. I've only encountered a couple of bugs so far, both of which concern freezing when a particular action is done...
So that's what I think about it. It's definitely introduces something new, and it's not just the graphics. It's very promising.
http://www.opentechsupport.net/feat...-02-1-thumb.jpg
Posted by: Null Actor
So is your hero persistant through multiplayer games or something?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
 Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
So is your hero persistant through multiplayer games or something?
|
Hehe, no, I don't think it's gonna be persistent ... they all start at level 1 once you summon them, and level up through the entirety of the game ... so the longer the game, the higher potential level he or she can get...
You can have access to three different heroes every game, although it's always proper to go withy just one, since the experience points will be evenly distributed between your heroes if you have more than one, making them level up slower...
The hero auras are a very big deal. A hero (with vampiric aura) and 6 gargoyles versus 10 enemy gargoyles always wins the fight handily - even with the hero just standing nearby and not fighting along...
Posted by: Bobaroo
Well I played my first game of the WC3 Beta today and I thought it was pretty fun. I tried out all 4 races. I found that Humans are easy to use but the NightElves are my favorite.
I like how if you have a scroll button on your mouse you can use that to move the view.
To bad I don't have a good vid card and couldn't take advantage of the good graphics
Posted by: Tarkus
I haven't had a lot of time to mess with the beta yet but my first impressions are this game is incredibly boring. It doesn't even come close to StarCraft and why Blizzard keeps focusing on WarCraft is beyond me. I won't buy this game when it becomes available. It moves way too slowly for me and just doesn't draw your interest like SC.
Laggy and I played a game last night and he stomped me only because I fell asleep at the keyboard watching these stupid little characters stand there doing nothing other than chop down trees and run back and forth from the gold mine. Fortunately the game locked up and Laggy disconnected so he's still yet to beat me and I remain undefeated at 2-0. 
On a serious note the only good thing about this game are the graphics and even those aren't all that impressive. They should have made the trees like Ghost Recon, with swaying and all that.  Anyway, if you liked or loved the earlier WarCraft versions you'll probably love this. Personally I find them all amazingly boring.
Tarkus
Posted by: Bobaroo
I could see how you say it could be boring, just because it is not as fast as SC. The workers in SC move a lot faster then the ones in WC. But I don't really find the game boring, I enjoy it and have fun playing it.
Posted by: Swilo
The workers in Warcraft games move realisticly. How long would it take you to chop down a tree or mine some gold? In SC they have the advantage of technology and can go faster.
Life is too slow for most people, so realistic games are also too slow.
Posted by: Null Actor
Realism is never worth the sacrifice of good gameplay.
Warcraft 3 doesn't have what starcraft had. I liked starcraft in its time. I can tell right off the bat that WC3 doesn't have that.
Also, I find WC3 far too crowded, and the screen is too busy. It's hard to tell apart units in a hurry (unlike starcraft), and you see such a small amount of space that it gets overly complicated to move your guys around.
Not to mention that the random monsters are just ****ing stupid. Maybe that's an option you can disable, I'm not sure on that point. But no one is going to like losing because a bunch of monsters wandered in and ****ed over their base in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Posted by: Spider
I find it is just as fast paced as Starcraft is, once the battles start, also the NPC units on the maps are there for a reason, so you can level up your hero and gain abilities to benefit his nearby compatriots when you assail the other players. Of course I'm biased, and all you naysayers suck LOL
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
But no one is going to like losing because a bunch of monsters wandered in and ****ed over their base in the first 5 minutes of the game.
|
Actually the creeps (monsters) will only attack your units if they get too close to them, and if they ever get in your base, they will only try to destroy structures that are still being built, not structures that are already there...
I like WarCraft 3 better than StarCraft right now, and it's still in beta... maybe it's because of some new mechanics like upkeep and hero levelling, or maybe it's because of the graphics and new races. I kinda like the aggressive emphasis on micromanagement in War3, as opposed to StarCraft.
As I said before, this game has potential. With its potentially rich single-player campaigns in the full version, I will most probably buy this game when it comes out. That is, if they can fix the bugs and game balance issues within the beta right now...
Posted by: Spider
*points at Laggy* What he said
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I kinda like the aggressive emphasis on micromanagement in War3, as opposed to StarCraft.
|
See, I've never liked the incessant micromanagement required by most RTSs. I think that's why I liked SC. Which is the only RTS I've ever liked enough to play more than twice.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I like micromanagement because I love RPGs ... Baldur's Gate is the epitome of micromanagement, and to see this RPG element in a strategy game is refreshing ... kinda like seeing action elements in an RPG that was introduced by the original Diablo
Posted by: Null Actor
I don't mind micromanagement if I only have one character. Two or more though and it just gets annoying.
Strangely enough though I only dislike micromanagement on the PC. In games like final fantasy I can do it forever without complaint.
Can't figure that one out.
Posted by: Tarkus
Um, Laggy Baldur's Gate (the original one) is much better than War III IMHO. Also, I second what Nova Z said in his first response to my post. The screen is way too crowded and it is difficult to tell units apart, which IMO has been the major issue with almost every RTS ever made except SC.
Tarkus
Posted by: Bobaroo
I get confused at my units being shown as white on the map because in SC they where green. So whenever I play with a green ally I will click around on there base and then realize it is not mine.
Posted by: Chako
What resolution can you play in? For some reason, I have this notion that Blizzard can only make 800x600 resolution games as their plateau. Wonder where I get that funny notion from.
Posted by: Outlaw
I think it goes upto 1280x1024.
Posted by: Spider
1600x1200x32 Might go higher, but that's all my monitor supports
Posted by: Outlaw
Didn't know it detects the max monitor settings too.
Posted by: Xtren
My monitor can go up to 1793 by 1344 with 32 bit colour but the lag is unbeleivable considering I only have 750 megaheartz.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Well if it's like Baldur's Gate, then I don't want it. I hated that game. I heard the second one was a lot better but I couldn't get out of my mind how annoying the first one was to play.
Posted by: Xtren
Well it is a different type of game so they would be hard to compare. We're talking about an RTS and an RPG here, that's two totally different topics. It all depends on what qualities you like in a game. If you like huge battles than you probably won't like Warcraft III, but if you're in for graphics then you probably will.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Baldur's Gate combat plays like a RTS game so I can see how they would be similiar.
I like RTS though if it's done right. Most of them become overly complex and it just becomes work instaed of fun. The combat interface should add to the fun, not become a complex puzzle.
Posted by: Xtren
If that's your overview than Warcraft III is the game for you. RTS games don't get more simple than Warcraft III believe me, and it isn't a very complex game at all. Resources are easy to get and the game is very easy to play. There are not too many buildings or units really and it is not difficult to build a big enough army to invade your opponent's base. The game is really easy, but that does take away from the strategy part of Warcraft III as well.
Posted by: Spider
A single group of twelve can win the day.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Well if it's like Baldur's Gate, then I don't want it. I hated that game.
|
Hehehe, I didn't really say it was like Baldur's Gate ... I was just pointing out Baldur's Gate as an example of how I like to do micromanagement, and RPGs like BG and BG2 are the epitome of micromanagement...
Which is why those who loved Starcraft would probably not like Warcraft III as much, coz there is a lot of micromanagement involved, and with the food cap of 90, huge armies are almost unheard of...
Posted by: Spider
Unless you go with undead.
Kill one enemy gain two allies.
Makes for hundreds of units
Posted by: Xtren
The armies still end up small in the end no matter what race you go with compared to other RTS games. The games tend to be won by quick rushes so you can't really build up a big base cause it takes too much time. You just build up an army and attack. That means that the game is not really based on strategy, which I think Blizzard should work on the next time they make a RTS game. I'm still not dissing Warcraft III though, cause there are a lot of other good things about the game.
Posted by: Spider
If your rush fails, you lose, heh, unless you build defense...which I only do on undead because their defense are their farms heh!
Posted by: Xtren
Don't you think the game would be a lot better if you could do things other than rushing your opponent's base? I don't even think you can build up walls around your base in the game cause I haven't seen any. Anyway if you want your rush to be successful I suggest not leaving any units for defense, cause if their army beats yours they can probably take your defense out as well.
Posted by: Spider
I like the higher units, right now me and Daed are both playing undead, he's going for necs and me for gargs
works pretty well.
Posted by: Outlaw
1. Look at the pictures.
2. Select a picture.
3. Include picture in post.
I think that works better than just using the random select method 
Posted by: Swilo
From all the screenshots I've seen there doesn't appear to be enough viewing area on screen. Maybe they were just zoomed in to show detail or something.
I'm going to "acquire" it today and try it out with spider and some people on my LAN. Wonder if it runs well on a voodoo3.
Posted by: Spider
Quote:
Originally posted by SniperIII
1. Look at the pictures.
2. Select a picture.
3. Include picture in post.
I think that works better than just using the random select method
|
I have no idea what you just said.
Posted by: Xtren
Don't worry about it Spider, I hope he explains cause I don't think I quite understand either. The link on your picture doesn't work though and that might have something to do with it.
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
I have no idea what you just said.
|
Aww crap.... Can a moderator delete this post please? I didn't mean to make another post.
Posted by: Outlaw
Quote:
Originally posted by Swilo
From all the screenshots I've seen there doesn't appear to be enough viewing area on screen. Maybe they were just zoomed in to show detail or something.
|
No, you're right, you can't zoom out far enough.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
I have no idea what you just said
|
I thought it was supposed to be a screenshot of you and Daed playing the way you discribed in your post.
Posted by: Xtren
Yeah, that does clear it up a bit. I get it now.
Posted by: Spider
Heh, actually I was posting a clipped error message that I get a lot, but if you want in-game shots
Here's an awesome one.
Posted by: Spider
And another
Posted by: Spider
*...
Posted by: Spider
Dum de dum
Posted by: Spider
Okay. Okay! Last one.
Posted by: Nfested
The biggest complaint I have from playing one game of WC3 is that its not as fast-going as Starcraft. The one game I was in, it pretty much consisted of two battles and then the game was over.
Of course the game should be slow going considering all the RPG elements added to the game. All RPG's are slowgoing.
Posted by: Swilo
Quote from picture "AHHH /n Frame rate"
Oh dear no, why this game, why, Why, WHY?!!!!
Posted by: Spider
Yeah Swilo. And Daedleus has a GF3.
Posted by: Xtren
You're deffinately right about the battles. Each game consists of one, and the bigger army wins. Then the game is over. You don't have to be experienced in the game, you just have to be good at rushing an opponent. The game is too simple and involves too little strategy.
Posted by: Chako
Hmmm...is it just me or does Warcraft 3 look alot like Battle Realms?
Posted by: Xtren
Maybe some of the units and landscape in Battle Realms might remind you of Warcraft III but I'd say the games are totally different. Battle Realms is a bit more unique and games span a little longer than they do in Warcraft III. I find you can do a lot more stuff in that game. Meanwhile Warcraft III games span a bit shorter and the graphics in the game are better. However Warcraft III is a much more traditionnal style RTS and there is nothing really unique about the way units and buildings in the game work. Gameplay in both games is good and fast but I think Battle Realms does involve a tad more strategy. Resources are easy to find in both games and it is not hard to build up an army. Both of the games abviously have different races but I think Warcraft III has better units and buildings. I also like the aspect of Heros in Warcraft III. To conclude, both of the games might be similar in ways but they are actually quite different.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Spider, I just started to try out the Undead and they are awesome. Getting tons of necros and Gargs, you win. They are unstopable.
Posted by: Xtren
They are also the hardest team to learn how to use though, and a good player can easily outmatch you if he uses the undead and has played a lot longer.
Posted by: Spider
I think it involves more strategy than you give it credit for Xtren, granted rushes don't, but organizing a massive assault on multiple fronts in a 4v4 game, is quite different than fending off a KotR or archer rush.
Posted by: Xtren
Yeah but usually if you try to play 4v4 the game will lag too much and a few people will end up dropping out. Still pretty much the same style of game either way. Whoever can build up the biggest army the fastest wins. The only alternative is if your teammates aren't very good, then you pretty much don't stand a chance, cause your opponents can gang up on you one by one. You usually have to rely on your teammates to do a bit of the work for you. It does involve a bit of strategy but I still think the game would be better if you could build walls and some other useful defenses.
Posted by: Spider
No, that would just draw out games for hours until the resources are gone and everyone ends up allying in the end with no winner(s).
And as for the building a bigger army faster, that's one way of simplifying the entire genre, not just war3.
Posted by: Xtren
All I'm stating is that they should make the game harder and more strategy based! I don't really care just how they decide to do it.
Posted by: Nfested
I agree with Xtren, the game needs more strategy. Although all games are basically "build up an army faster," Warcraft 3 makes it alot easier to build up an army. In Starcraft, if you see ur opponent powering up alot harder than you, u can either power up with him or attack before he gets enough units. Its not like that in Warcraft 3. The game is basically a bunch of big battles. Battles with small groups of people are pointless.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I'll refer you to my most recent post in the other active beta thread.
There is plenty of strategy. Lots of it. I've seen it exercised, and I've used it. Why does it not seem this way to someone who doesn't look very hard at it.....?
.....because it is very much different from what any of us are used to from the RTS genre (Starcraft specifically, as it has been the most influential).
Posted by: Nfested
Maybe i'm phrasing my point the wrong way. When I play SC my mind is always working thinking about what to do. However when I play WC3 its just mass up units and attack and kill expansions if u see any.
This ismight be because I don't know alot of WC3 yet and I know a lot about Starcraft to strategize and plan ahead.
Posted by: Bobaroo
I do the same thing in SC that I do in WC3(sort of) I get a diverse number of men. Some to get air and some to get ground, some to cast spells etc. I just don't mass up on 1 type of unit.
Posted by: Nfested
LOL I remember playing Broodwar a few months back and my partner got a few zealots and then one of each unit just because he told me "the strategies I've read told me not to mass up on one unit." LOL he was so dumb.
Some good things Blizzard left out of WC3 that were annoying in SC was the issue of cloaked units and flying units. If you are decent, you can easily defend against a Chimaera rush and you don't really have to worry about one single cloaked unit messing up your whole game.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Nfested
you don't really have to worry about one single cloaked unit messing up your whole game.
|
LOL...No DT's to mess you up you terran player without any detection
Posted by: Nfested
Quote:
Originally posted by Bobaroo330
LOL...No DT's to mess you up you terran player without any detection
|
Noo.... that would be you.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Nfested
Noo.... that would be you.
|
You are the terran player not me
Posted by: Xtren
I find Warcraft III similar to other Blizzard RTS games in some ways. They don't like long battles and all of the games have small armies, Starcraft having the biggest on a side note.
Posted by: Fenix2004
Quote:
Originally posted by Nfested
don't really have to worry about one single cloaked unit messing up your whole game.
|
I heard that the night elves can cloak at night.. cant u just wait till night and come with ur army? How long does it take to switch to night?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenix2004
I heard that the night elves can cloak at night.. cant u just wait till night and come with ur army?
|
The Night Elves only cloak at night when they stand still ... when they start to move, you can see them ... so you can still somewhat see them when they enter your base at night, although they appear transluscent...
Posted by: Fenix2004
How many minutes does it take for the game time of day to pass from day to night?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenix2004
How many minutes does it take for the game time of day to pass from day to night?
|
Usually after 5 minutes ... you can notice if it's nighttime when you see the forest dim, or if you see the creeps sleeping... besides, there is an indicator in the top-middle of the game screen that tells you if it's night or day
Posted by: Xtren
It doesn't take long at all. I wouldn't usually keep track but I'd estimate it takes about five to ten minutes. Nights therefore don't last extremely long so even if the enemy wouldn't be able to see your units I don't think you'd have enough time to scale an average sized base. If you are confident in your army then you should just attack whenever you are ready. Then you still have the elemant of surprise with you. If the enemy attacks you first then he will usually be prepared for a retaliation.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Some screenshots:
http://www.opentechsupport.net/feat...night-thumb.jpg
You'll notice the elves are transluscent, and the creeps are sleeping ... they won't attack you during the night, unless you attack them first...
http://www.opentechsupport.net/feat...2-day-thumb.jpg
During the day, the creeps will attack if you get too near...
Posted by: VoBRX
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
Yeah Swilo. And Daedleus has a GF3.
|
Yeah, and I was playing at 1600x1200 with max detail settings. I've lowered it a notch since then, to 1280x1024 with max detail and it runs flawlessly.
I wonder if there's a command to check/display FPS...
Posted by: Xtren
I play Warcraft III fairly frequently since I have the beta and one of the things that I have noticed over the past week or so is that a lot less people are playing it now. This is just an observation but it's an interesting fact.
The reasons are either
a) The game didn't live up to people's expectations.
or
b) People are getting bored of playing it.
I figure if you are a beta tester than you should play the game at a frequent rate and not stop once you are bored considering Blizzard is letting you TEST the game.
If you get bored of stuff that easily then you probably shouldn't buy Warcraft III for your own benefit. I admit the game does get a little boring but you can always have some friends come over and show off to them. I figure the main idea of the beta is not only to test the game but to get people to see if they like it so they can buy it when it comes out.
Posted by: Null Actor
It doesn't bode well if people are getting bored of the game already. The beta hasn't even been out a full month has it?
I don't remember anyone playing starcraft getting bored of it... heh.
Posted by: Xtren
Yeah it is weird but there has deffinately been a big decrease in the number of people playing the game in the past week or so. This can't be a good sign for Blizzard. What makes this really annoying is that with less people playing there is not as many people to play against and it is harder to find a game.
By the way, I got bored of Starcraft quite easily...... of course I didn't really like the game very much to begin with
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I am looking forward to the full version, where the single player campaigns and other features really make the game worth playing.
Multiplayer is very nice, but limited strategies you can employ in a rushing game (oh wait, it's "quick attack") can get really boring easily to some players. The same techniques are being used over and over again since there is really no other diverse ways to beat your opponent.
It's the consequence of designing a one-sided strategy game
Posted by: Tarkus
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
By the way, I got bored of Starcraft quite easily...... of course I didn't really like the game very much to begin with
|
All that means is that you don't like RTS games since StarCraft is by far the best ever made. And don't give me Total Annihilation, which was probaby a very distant second.
This is how much I like WarCraft III. I'm giving my beta to a friend.
Tarkus
Posted by: Gunslinger
I think it sucks. I really abhor this game - but not really for the reasons most commonly stated in this forum.
Anyway. Single player on an RTS game means nothing to me. It took me years to beat Warcraft 2's missions, and that only finally happened because I was snowed in for 3 days one winter.
I never finished the Starcraft or Brood War missions. Not even close. They just never did anything for me. I don't expect anything different out of Warcraft 3. At this point, it's not looking like I'm going to buy the game. Right now it's just not the competitive environment that I'm looking for. And it's certainly not good enough to warrant me shelling out more cash while I'm currently paying for DAOC.
Maybe I'll play Progress Quest instead to free up some money for War3 .....................................................not.
Posted by: Nfested
What do you not like about this game that makes you abhor it?
I still like Starcraft better, but Warcraft 3 is still fun. The heroes concept is good and leveling them up is both challenging and fun. Managing ur town and economy is made a lot easier. The battles are fun too. I dislike many things about the game, but not one detail of the game makes me abhor it. Besides, it is still a Beta and the game needs more work.
Starcraft is still better, but you weren't expecting just another Starcraft remake were you?
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarkus
All that means is that you don't like RTS games since StarCraft is by far the best ever made.
|
Opinions do differ, I can name a lot of RTS games that I think are better than Starcraft. I still think Warcraft II and III are better than Starcraft and I will probably always think so. Starcraft is a fairly good game in my opinion but I really can't see how people can say it is the best. It's a fairly old game and technology has advanced a lot since the release of Starcraft.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
It's a fairly old game and technology has advanced a lot since the release of Starcraft.
|
Technology has nothing to do with game quality, plz, kthx.
Posted by: Xtren
Well maybe it doesn't have anything to do with how a the game is played but it does have to do with the graphics and detail that is put into the game. People also improve on the flaws of other games which means games are always going to get better, and they are going to have less bugs and glitches. The concept and setting of Starcraft is unique and the game was great at the time that it came out. Warcraft was also great at the time it came out but then Warcraft II blew it away.
Posted by: Darky!
WC2 did not blow away WC thank you very much.
I'd take WC over WC2 any day. But I don't have any computer that'll run it properly 
Posted by: Xtren
Why would you take Warcraft over Warcraft II? Warcraft II is an improvement over Warcraft in just about every single way. Blizzard obviously improved their game in the sequel and there is a major difference between the two games in basically all aspects.
Posted by: Darky!
Have you ever acctally played WC?
Posted by: TotalRecall
I agree with Gunslinger. A game is not a RTS game to me unless it involves a challenge with others. Playing a game in which the odds are originally slated to the AI is not fun for me.
I've also not finished the Starcraft or Warcraft II missions. Actually, I've never even started in single player Warcraft II...
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by Nfested
What do you not like about this game that makes you abhor it?
I still like Starcraft better, but Warcraft 3 is still fun. The heroes concept is good and leveling them up is both challenging and fun. Managing ur town and economy is made a lot easier. The battles are fun too. I dislike many things about the game, but not one detail of the game makes me abhor it. Besides, it is still a Beta and the game needs more work.
Starcraft is still better, but you weren't expecting just another Starcraft remake were you?
|
No, what I was expecting was a game that is..........
1. Challenging
2. Fun
3. Simple enough that anyone can play (it is this), but complex enough that complex strategies (do not confuse this wirh diverse) are present, and advanced level players can emerge and produce a highly competitive environment. (it doesn't have this)
4. Capable of evolving in a manner that transcends balance changes.
Does this describe a perfect RTS game as we can currently imagine one? Perhaps. Warcraft 3 is none of these things. Starcraft was all of these things. And Starcraft isn't just better, it's in a completely different league. But no, I wasn't looking for a remake of Starcraft. I already have Starcraft and can play it at any time. Blizzard had some good ideas, heroes and upkeep being good examples. However, they failed to implement them on a higher level, so the good ideas with Warcraft 3 turned into a monotonous presence.
Does this answer your question?
Quote:
|
Besides, it is still a Beta and the game needs more work
|
Can you name any games that were fundamentally redesigned as a result of a beta test and still managed to be released within 1 year of the beta?
Not likely.
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Darky!
Have you ever acctally played WC?
|
I am not an idiot, I obviously wouldn't say that I like Warcraft II better than Warcraft if I haven't played both games. I bought them both in a Battlechest a while ago but I don't have the BNE edition of Warcraft II.
I guess I might have gotten a little carried away with a few things I stated earlier but maybe your opinion is just the total opposite of mine.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
People also improve on the flaws of other games which means games are always going to get better, and they are going to have less bugs and glitches.
|
I'm sorry, games will always have bugs. Making a sequel doesn't mean it will have less bugs. Not in the slightest.
Posted by: Xtren
Yes but it probably won't have the same bugs that the first game had.
Posted by: Darky!
I think what nova is trying to say is software will always have bugs. Until software is made totally by machine or an AI so complex its beyond our understanding, it CAN and WILL have bugs.
Makeing a sequal doesn't mean its going to have less bugs, because you still have the human element doing the coding. Not to mention that sequals can be other games that have no bindings to the previous software, other then story, name, etc. to the first.
And sequals aren't always better. A great deal of the time there worse then the original.
Posted by: Xtren
Well in the case of Warcraft and Warcraft II (as I mentionned earlier) there is a big difference in most of the features of the games. Warcraft II has a World Editor and a Multiplayer mode. Gameplay is slightly faster in Warcraft II and the graphics are obviously better in Warcraft II as well. There is very little that Blizzard didn't improve on when theyput out the sequel for Warcraft which means the game is technically better and more advanced. Maybe if someone can tell me why they think Warcraft is better than Warcraft II I would get the point.
Posted by: Darky!
Since when do multiplayer and graphics make the game?
Like I said.
Play WC1 ALL the way through. The storyline and gameplay is beter, even if you think it is slow.
Posted by: Xtren
I would put Warcraft doesn't work with Windows XP Pro, so I can't really play the game at all.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
I would put Warcraft doesn't work with Windows XP Pro, so I can't really play the game at all.
|
My brother installed it on an Xp Pro machine. It is to fast to play!!
Posted by: Darky!
Then don't say one is better then the other plzkthx.
Posted by: Xtren
I told you that I have played the game, and that I liked Warcraft II better. I just didn't play the game all the way through that's all.
Posted by: Chako
I would have to say the best RTS game I have ever played was Total Annihilation. Total Annihilation Kingdoms a distant second.
As for Warcraft and Warcraft II, I enjoyed them both equally to completion.
Posted by: Xtren
I've never even heard of Total Annihilation but a lot of people tell me it is really good. Do you have any links where I could see some screenshots Chako?
Posted by: Darky!
http://www.cavedog.com for TA screenshots.
And if you don't play a game all the way through, you can't really tell if a games good or not.
Posted by: Xtren
Actually you can because if you play the game a lot, just don't get to finish it you still get the basic idea of the game and how it is played. So you can still tell if you like it or not.
Btw thanks for the address.
Posted by: Chako
Xtren..it was made my the now defunct Cavedog.
I still play it today. This says something about it because the majority of game titles gets erased once I am finished with it.
The best thing is that you can find the game bundled with the 2 add on packs for around 10 to 20 dollars.
Still has a hard-core following. This is one of the better sites for the game
http://www.planetannihilation.com/
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Darky!
And if you don't play a game all the way through, you can't really tell if a games good or not.
|
I'd have to disagree with you there. Especially with an RTS. See all the units, learn a little strategy. You don't have to complete the single player missions to decide if you like it or not. I never finished WC2, or SC.
I find that if you don't like a game after playing for a while, then chances are you won't like it at all.
Posted by: Darky!
Like I said, its not always grraphics and gameplay that make the game. Theres a huge part to most good games thats story, and quite frankly, if you took away the story, the game would suck.
See my point?
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by Darky!
http://www.cavedog.com for TA screenshots.
And if you don't play a game all the way through, you can't really tell if a games good or not.
|
lol
Posted by: Xtren
I agree with Nova Z. After you play a RTS for a while you get used to it and you learn all the strategies and you get used to the way the game is played in general. You don't have to play a RTS game all the way through to know if you like it or not.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Although in the case of RTS'es with a potentially good story (as was evident in Starcraft), it's only logical to play it all the way through to determine if it has a good single player campaign (that is, if it draws you in and does not bore you to death) ... now, if you're only concerned with multiplayer in anything you play, then it's an easier decision whether to like the game or not...
Posted by: Xtren
You're right about that too but in this case I'm not basing my decision on a specific aspect of the game such as campaigns or multiplayer modes. If you want to base a decision on the game in general then once again, it is not necessary to play the game the whole way through. Just play it for a little while and you should have formed an opinion by then.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Anyone use the new patch yet? Did you like it/not like it?
From what I read it seems that the game changes alot.
Posted by: Xtren
I didn't get a chance to yet but I'm planning on using it later, so I'll give you some details when I do. I have a few friends though and they say it's really good. Here's some information on it:
-http://www.war3.org
Posted by: Darky!
Theres a difference between wether or not you like a game, and wether or not its good.
You need to play a game all the way through to find out if its truly good or not. Some games are crappy all the way through,exept for the story, and the story is what makes them great.
And on the other hand, you can just pick up a game box and tell if you'll like it, or not. Play it, and have fun, completely ignoreing the story.
It sort of goes along with the two types of gamers that nova wrote a while ago.
Posted by: Xtren
It could all be the other way around as well. For example in a game such as Diablo the story was not very good at all. I just liked the multiplayer mode because you played with other people. I therefore didn't have to play it the whole way through. I just played it often.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Darky!
Theres a difference between wether or not you like a game, and wether or not its good.
You need to play a game all the way through to find out if its truly good or not. Some games are crappy all the way through,exept for the story, and the story is what makes them great.
And on the other hand, you can just pick up a game box and tell if you'll like it, or not. Play it, and have fun, completely ignoreing the story.
It sort of goes along with the two types of gamers that nova wrote a while ago.
|
Naa. My stuff doesn't cover this.
If a game has bad gameplay, it's nearly impossible to enjoy it, even if it had the best story on earth. Yet a game can be fun regardless of story.
All I'm saying is that you can easily decide if you like the game or not without finishing it.
Posted by: Darky!
Diablo's story was fairly good.
Diablo 2's sucked.
Posted by: Null Actor
You are kidding yourself darky. The only story was that in the manual.
If the story isn't in the game, then the story isn't part of the game.
Posted by: Chako
Agreed. Diablo didn't have much of a story, likewise it's sibling had the same problem.
A good story enhanced a game experience, but it isn't crucial. For instance, who needs a story in FPS games? Half life showed that it adds to the overall experience. But then Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, and even the Serious Sam games showed that a good game is still a good game without a good story line. RPGs are different then FPS games due to its game play. A good story is almost necessary for these titles.
So, it all depends on the type of the game etc...
As for the other stuff. I believe that if you enjoy the game, then it was a good game. Regardless if others hate it. That game was good for you and you enjoyed it.
I don't need to play a game all the way through to see if its a good game. If I enjoy the first 30 minutes to an hour, then it will be a good game. If I dislike the game,,then it is craptastic fare and I won't finish it because I don't enjoy falling asleep at my computer, or swearing and cursing at the monitor, the game designers, the publisher, the idiot who bought the game etc...
Its like a book. It is all subjective. I cannot read a book I dislike even if hundreds of people say it was good. If you lose interest, then why read it?
Posted by: Darky!
The story was the quests
Do them in order plzkthx
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
If a game has bad gameplay, it's nearly impossible to enjoy it, even if it had the best story on earth. Yet a game can be fun regardless of story.
|
Well said Nova, that's the point I was trying to make this whole time.
By the way, on the subject of Diablo's story or quests, most pf them had the same concept except for varying levels of difficulty. All the dungeons or levels were basically the same as well.
Posted by: Chako
Well then..the story (what little of it there was) was weak then
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
If a game has bad gameplay, it's nearly impossible to enjoy it, even if it had the best story on earth.
|
I kinda agree ... Deux Ex being my number one example I can't get into it, so i stopped playing, even though they say it was good...
Of course, it's a matter of personal taste...
Posted by: Spider
A subjective question. (Even though while playing war3 one day I said I was done posting in this particular forum because it was like talking to a brick wall...remember that Daed? )
What defines, "gameplay?"
I asked this in OTS the other day and the mere responce I got from the few present was a unisonant, "fun."
Posted by: Darky!
I never said it was good.
I said it was descent.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
What defines, "gameplay?"
|
Gameplay is defined by what you have to do to play the game.
Good gameplay tends to be subjective. But some generalizations that can be made is that a game with an intuitive interface and transparent gameplay tend to be 'good', unless something else ruins it.
Intuitive interface should be self explanatory (intuitive even!).
Transparent gameplay means that the gameplay is so straight forward and natural (and by that extension simple and easy to learn), that after a few minutes of playing the game, you don't 'notice' what it is you are doing. You only know the game, and what is going on in the game.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I kinda agree ... Deux Ex being my number one example I can't get into it, so i stopped playing, even though they say it was good...
Of course, it's a matter of personal taste...
|
meh...
*shrug*
Your loss.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
meh...
*shrug*
Your loss.
|
hehe Deux Ex is a great game.
Posted by: Chako
It was a good game. It is hard to get into though, so I can commiserate with Laggy.
Once it sucks you in though..it is worth the time spent playing it.
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
What defines, "gameplay?"
|
Gameplay is the manner or style of the game in general.
ex: An RTS is played differently than an RPG.
Gameplay is also what strategies the game is made up of, what you are capable of doing in a game (the larger variety the better) and how your opponents react when you play against them. You can usually set the difficulty level in a game anyway when you play singleplayer. Gameplay is not based on the storyline of a game or on graphics or movie clips, etc. It is based on the functions and controls, and what you can do.
Posted by: uh...ok
I don't know what you guys were talking about in these last few posts... I gave up trying to read it all after page 3.
Anyhoo, I just tried it and I look forward to playing single player campaigns. The multiplayer doesn't seem as fun (simply because it's harder to develop your heroes in fast-paced, rush-based multiplayer games, which is what we all know it'll boil down to in the end).
I'm surprised that it runs fairly smoothly on my P3-450 voodoo3, although I'm running it at 640x480x16.
It looks to be a good game. Not sure if it can be great though.
-uh...ok
Posted by: Xtren
Yeah I agree with your opinion on multiplayer. It is still fun but has too fast of a pace and most of the games you play result on rushing. I think the singleplayer campaigns are going to be great though, simply because of the great storyline Blizzard should easily be able to come up with to make the campaigns in a more RPG type style in a way. I think it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some good content for the campaigns because there is a lot of room to use your imagination when basing the storyline on the statistics (units buildings, heros, etc.) of Warcraft III.
Posted by: MLXMariners
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
See, I've never liked the incessant micromanagement required by most RTSs. I think that's why I liked SC. Which is the only RTS I've ever liked enough to play more than twice.
|
Sounds to me like Warcraft III or in general RTS are not ur type of game. Micromanagement IMO makes the game more fun and action packed instead of just sending ur units to die and forget about them. That is what makes games boring. With all this multi-tasking, it makes me wonder how people can consider this "slow paced".
And by the way, SC did involve an intense amount of micromanagment, for example, pulling off an early reaver drop, so either u were not playing the game as well as possible or u r contradicting urself.
Posted by: Null Actor
MLXMariners, you should read the whole thread before posting. I've fully explained my position on RTS games, and I'm not about to repeat everything for your benefit.
Posted by: MLXMariners
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
MLXMariners, you should read the whole thread before posting. I've fully explained my position on RTS games, and I'm not about to repeat everything for your benefit.
|
I took ur advice and reviewed previous posts with consideration and came to many conclusions:
1. You must suck at RTS, you dislike micromanagement, and don't play them for more than 2 games metaphorically speaking.
2. You dislike it when people critique you, considering your position as a staff member, you might think ur god, so you can't believe somebody actually said something about you, so you can do nothing but speak back. Srry, im not a brown noser.
3. You did NOT state ur position on RTS, maybe u alluded to them, but im not ur bestfriend so how the hell would i understand.
Posted by: Spider
Heh, I'm starting to like the, "Gameplay = fun" responce more and more.
Posted by: uh...ok
(Advance apology to Laggy for replying to this flame, but I had to...)
Mariners, I'd like to know how you can come to such "conclusions" after having arrived at OTS for not a long while, and participated even less... for someone who doesn't know anything at all about the people here, you're NOT one to make judgments and assumptions about the personalities of the people on this board.
Do not start assuming about staff members until you realize how much they contribute to this board (more than you and your puny 18 posts can fathom).
-uh...ok
Quote:
Originally posted by MLXMariners
2. You dislike it when people critique you, considering your position as a staff member, you might think ur god, so you can't believe somebody actually said something about you, so you can do nothing but speak back. Srry, im not a brown noser.
|
Posted by: uh...ok
Anyway... back on topic.
Spider, "Gameplay = Fun" seems to be the direction this thread is drifting towards anyway...
-uh...ok
Posted by: Nfested
Quote:
Originally posted by uh...ok
Do not start assuming about staff members until you realize how much they contribute to this board (more than you and your puny 18 posts can fathom).
|
Lets not start making fun of people because of how many posts (or lack of) they have. That's basically saying "I spend more time than you at OTS hahaha you suck"
MLXMariners, you have been registered since September 2001 and still don't know anything about these forums? And Uh..ok is right you do not have the right to make judgements about other people.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Nfested
Lets not start making fun of people because of how many posts (or lack of) they have. That's basically saying "I spend more time than you at OTS hahaha you suck"
|
Haha I have more post then you, Nfested! I am superior
Ok so how about we talk about War3 again?
Posted by: uh...ok
I may have sounded a little "making fun" when I used the word "puny". I was only using that adjective as an emphasis, not an insult.
I was pointing to his post count as a sign of a lack of participation (and possibly knowledge) about the forums and the people here - and therefore he is not qualified to pass any kind of judgment on the staff or members. Someone can register as early as he or she wants, but if that person doesn't visit often or participate, it becomes a moot point.
Anyhow, back to WarCraft 3.
Who finds the 1.11 patch annoying?
-uh...ok
Posted by: Chako
Anyhow, I will agree with Nova on this one, and I have played almost all RTS games known to simian apes.
My favorite RTS of all time, total annihilation didn't require much micromanagement. A real good RTS allows you to concentrate on building your war machine. Some game producers haven't figured this out yet, and thus some RTS games suck.
I think Mariner, you are confusing true micromanagement to that found in most RTS games. True micromanagement I cannot stand..such as those found in God games, where you have to build a house to make X amount of people happy, then you must build a Mine to create jobs for those people, so that they can take in money and build farm tools, to create even more jobs to have farmers farm with their new tools, then once done, you need to look at storage capacity, etc...and it all boils down to building an army so that you can finally go and kick some other players @ss about 3 hours into the game.
Now THAT is micromanagement! It isn’t fun either. But then I know many who like those kind of games. To each their own, which is where you didn’t follow one of the prime rules on msg boards. You do not attack someone simply because their idea of a good game differs from yours. I think that is worth 3 days in the dog house…Woof!
Posted by: Nfested
Quote:
Originally posted by uh...ok
Anyhow, back to WarCraft 3.
Who finds the 1.11 patch annoying?
|
I do, but only because it is less fun to play than patch 1.03 and they made the races more similar to each other.
Posted by: MLXMariners
First of all, im not confused w/anything. And 2nd of all, are u Nova Z's *****es? Let him fight his own battles.
Posted by: uh...ok
I defend Nova because I have known him long enough, met him personally, and because simply put, he is my friend.
Anyhoo... Chaks, although that may be your style... my personal preference leans more towards micromanagement than "big huge armies." It gets kinda boring (IMHO) when the game comes simply down to Who Makes the Bigger Army. If it becomes just a numbers game, hell, Calculus class is enough for that.
My best memories of playing StarCraft did not involve huge battles or anything of that ilk. Whenever I think of good moments of StarCraft, I think about holding off armies of assaulters with bunkers and tanks... or the time when my 12 zealots and 6 cannons survived an entire game against 3 computer attackers. Those situations lean more towards micromanagement.
I do understand that micromanagement (and I am beginning to tire of the repetitive use of this word), when in excess, may get boring too. Such as the instance you cited, I'm sure a lot of people don't want to go into the finest details...
But if you take all aspects like that away, all you end up with is a simple minded... as I said before, numbers game. And I don't like games where numbers are involved.
What I like about WarCraft 3 is the lack of emphasis on numbers and more on the individual. Each unit must be made and selected carefully - cannon simply does not exist in this game (or it should not). The elements of micromanagement have shifted from caring for a base and gathering resources to where the action's actually at - the fighters. (Although I must admit that I find myself focusing way too much on the economy in WC3 still... probably cause of WC2 and SC )
-uh...ok
Posted by: Chako
Uh Ok, I just have a different definition of micromanagement. I can't stand God games because I find them tedious. I also micromanage my units and do prefer smaller battles ect...but I don't really call that micromanagement even though it probably is.
mariner...you think Nova needs me to fight his battles...LOL. Besides I wasn't defending him. I don't have to...he can defend for himself if he needs to.
Personally, I don't even think you rate a battle.
I would dearly love to know that censored word..and possibly make you eat it.
If you construed my post to YOU as an insult..then you are dead wrong. I was expanding on what I consider micromanagement.
From this point, I will just ignore whatever you say....You are not worth the bother.
Have a nice day.
Slaps the first BRX on Laggy’s forums…an honor that Mariner should wear proudly!
Posted by: uh...ok
*sends Chako an economy-sized 20-pack of BRX's* Let's hope you don't have to open this! But just in case.
That said...
It all boils down to balance, doesn't it? Gotta find the right median between micromanagement and whatever-the-hell-word-they-have-for-the-other-kind. Too much micromanagement - it gets tedious. No micromanagement - the game's pointless and boring.
But of course, everyone has different medians... so there is no real right or wrong median. I guess a game that is really successful is one that finds a spot that appeals to the largest concentration of players.
-uh...ok
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by MLXMariners
First of all, im not confused w/anything. And 2nd of all, are u Nova Z's *****es? Let him fight his own battles.
|
Yay! An official reason to give you an official warning! Personal attacks are not allowed on the forums. Keep it up and you will be suspended from posting.
Now, as for anything else, if you paid half a shred of attention to these forums, you'll realize I've been having posting problems.
Now, with that out of the way:
Quote:
I took ur advice and reviewed previous posts with consideration and came to many conclusions:
1. You must suck at RTS, you dislike micromanagement, and don't play them for more than 2 games metaphorically speaking.
2. You dislike it when people critique you, considering your position as a staff member, you might think ur god, so you can't believe somebody actually said something about you, so you can do nothing but speak back. Srry, im not a brown noser.
3. You did NOT state ur position on RTS, maybe u alluded to them, but im not ur bestfriend so how the hell would i understand.
|
1. It doesn't matter wether or not I suck at starcraft, or any other RTS for that matter. This point of yours is an empty troll. Some people don't have to 'win' at a game every time they play to enjoy it. Some play just for the fun of playing. To come to the conclusion that I 'suck' at a game simply because I don't like the genre, is a very 12 year old thing to do.
2. Critique me all you want. I don't mind intelligent critique. However, if you are going to simply hurl childish insults, then don't expect me to give a rats ass about what you say.
3. I'm sure I stated my position on RTSes somewhere in this War3 forum, but for your convinience (since you obviously don't care to find it yourself), I'll reiterate:
I don't like RTS games in general. I have played many RTS games (Dune 2, C&C, AoE, SC, WC2, etc). I find that most of them require far too much 'little things' to progress the game forward. Too many dependancies, too many different kinds of resources, too many things you are required to know to play. Starcraft is the only RTS I truly enjoyed. Starcraft didn't require tons of little things to play. Start the game, lay down your building, create your units, hit a few upgrade buttons, then just go.
I haven't really played any other RTS that was that simple to control. Starcraft had a limited amount of units, a small spattering of buildings, and only two resource types. It doesn't take much effort or micromanagement to play SC.
You seem to be confusing 'micromanagement' with 'controlling your units'. That is not what micromanagement means at all, when it comes to RTS games. Micromanagement can simply be described by how many numbers you have to worry about.
Posted by: MLXMariners
Wow, u guys post long, tedious, really boring posts which i made myself read. Maybe u guys should worry less about what ppl think of u and spend more time worry about something else. What i mean is, i get the point, one paragraph is enough, i hate u, u hate me...end of discussion.
BTW - what is BRX
Posted by: Null Actor
BRX is something people like you earn.
BTW, if you didn't want to hear my reply, why did you ask for it? It's not a long post. It took me all of a minute and a half to do.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Micromanagement sucks. I was a fan of the original AoE and the expansion because it was simple to build units and assemble work forces and get right into battle.
With the second one, they added all kinds of junk like a Univsity and a bunch of other extra building types and troops. It became too much like work. Just because there is less micromanagement though does not mean it takes less skill to be good at. It just gets into gameplay a little quicker is all.
Anyway, it's my opinion that RTS is played out. They're all the same to me anymore. Same type of play, different look.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
*ahem*
You people need to calm down or I'll be closing this thread. kthx
Posted by: Darky!
Who's not calm?
I'm calm.
When I sleep.
Posted by: Spider
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Anyway, it's my opinion that RTS is played out. They're all the same to me anymore. Same type of play, different look.
|
lol.
You could say the same about every genre of games - excluding RPG's.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
True! That's why whenever an innovative game comes out, they get a lot of attention. Really I guess it comes down to taste as to what has longevity to a specific gamer.
Some innovation sucks though which is why it's more risky for developers. For example, a turn based FPS probably wouldn't sell too well.
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
For example, a turn based FPS probably wouldn't sell too well.
|
That would be one funny game! Talk about your all time crappy games.
::[eP]McDonald fires their handgun at your left arm::
::You take 11 damage::
::You fire a blast from your shotgun to [eP]McDonald at their right leg::
::[eP]McDonald takes 41 damage::
::[eP]McDonald fires a bullet from their sniper rifle at your head::
::You are dead::
::YAWN!!!::
Posted by: Chako
I don't know...a turned based FPS might be different enough to be successful.
Posted by: uh...ok
LMFAO... turn-based FPS... ah good ol' XCOM and its turn-based interface.
Ion, I myself am pretty much tired of video games in general... I have yet to find a game to replace Counter-Strike - which I'm already bored of.
(oops ended sentence in a preposition )
-uh...ok
Posted by: Spider
Turn based FPS? How about any MMOG out there.
Excluding UO.
Posted by: MLXMariners
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
BRX is something people like you earn.
|
Great... i understand it so much better now...it was a simple question...Can u answer a simple question?
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
brX is a term from the old battle.net days when annoying pethetic bastards posted flames, insults, spam, or were trolls in general. When you squelched such a pethetic waste of air like that, a big red X appeared by their name and it blocked all their text.
Thus, brX= Big Red X.
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
*ahem*
You people need to calm down or I'll be closing this thread. kthx
|
Yeah you might want to start using the Private Message button if you disagree with people, sometimes argueing with the higher authority (in this case Nova Z) might result in a ban form the forums. I'm not saying it will but some people tolerate less than others and some forums are a lot more strict about these things too. Anyway, we should now get back to Warcraft III, remembering the title of this thread.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
Yeah you might want to start using the Private Message button if you disagree with people, sometimes argueing with the higher authority (in this case Nova Z) might result in a ban form the forums.
|
ROFL
Bettered be good Laggy. Before the higher powers lay the smack down on your ass.
Posted by: Null Actor
INDEED!
Posted by: uh...ok
"You can't ban me! I quit!"
*runs back to his corner and hides*
-uh...ok
Posted by: Xtren
*returns after an absence of several days*
"I'm going to apologise to all those that I hurt and all my loved ones out there for what I have done........ And I am going to start spamming again shortly"
|
|
|
|
|
