lowzeewee Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Blizzard games seemed to be a lot more popular and more hi-tech than WW's games. :O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Blizzard games seemed to be a lot more popular and more hi-tech than WW's games. :O1. Wrong: RA1 is the best selling RTS ever, and all the C&C's have sold more copies than their Blizzard counterparts. (C&C more than War1, RA more than SC or War2, Generals will probably be more than War3 - I know Ren has.)2. That can interpreted two ways: That the actual content is more futuristic in Bliz games, which is obviously worng, or that Bliz games have better grpaphics, which, again, is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Has Blizzard even done an FPS? No. Its actually a third person shooter, and under development, its called Starcraft: Ghost, I think you've heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 I think Blizzard games still have better graphics and smoother gameplay and a BETTER online game system.As of then,RA and CnC were like the only RTS games while WC was still in the shadows back then.And because of WW's older games' popularity,people thought that the later games would be even better than the first few but unfortunately not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terror Posted July 20, 2003 Author Share Posted July 20, 2003 Blizzard games seemed to be a lot more popular and more hi-tech than WW's games. :O1. Wrong: RA1 is the best selling RTS ever, and all the C&C's have sold more copies than their Blizzard counterparts. (C&C more than War1, RA more than SC or War2, Generals will probably be more than War3 - I know Ren has.)2. That can interpreted two ways: That the actual content is more futuristic in Bliz games, which is obviously worng, or that Bliz games have better grpaphics, which, again, is wrong.That is utter bullcrap. Dune2 sold more copies than warcraft, C&C and RA sold more copies than Warcraft 2. But they did not sell more than Starcraft, and Generals will definetly not sell more than warcraft 3. And Blizzard made no FPS, they did make 2 very popular RPG's, whereas Westwood's Nox is a nice try, but never got any popularity. Also, both Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 where the fastest selling pc games ever, now that means how many fans that blizzard has. This was the same when TS came out, but people got disappointed and Westwood lost most loyal fans, and now everyone just waits and see if the westwood product is actually worth spending money on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Red Alert 1 came out a little while after Warcraft 1 and at that time, and the latter's graphics and gameplay,obviously,was rather crappy while that of RA1 was good and the gameplay and controls were easy to manage so people thought that all WW products would be like this but unfortunately for them,no!WW didn't improve their methods in their next few games and got quite boring after all.And since EA wanted to buy them,they cannot resist the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Speaking of The Frozen Throne...For the past few days I've been working on a map that would have the Naga as a playable race. And today I finally finished it! The map itself is not new - it's one of the old W3 maps. But it has one special feature: When you select the Orcs as your race, you get to play with the Naga instead!Try it out and tell me what you think:Forest of the NagaNote #1: The Naga have a new hero, the Royal Guard. It uses the model of the Royal Guard unit from the campaigns, but it has several new hero spells.Note #2: All Naga units and heroes can swim.Note #3: There is no new AI, so don't try having a Naga computer player, because it won't do anything.[attachment archived by Gobalopper] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 That's really cool, thx Edric O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 What's all that jazz about the mask stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 In the Beta, the Orc Shadow Hunter had a cool-looking mask, I'm sure you can find a picture of it somewhere. They took it away in the full version, which looks pretty dumb.And Flameweaver: Red Alert has sold more copies than SC. RA=8 million, SC=7 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 A troll hero without a mask!LOL! ::)If EA was better,Blizzard would have collapsed by now,or earlier than WW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 A troll hero without a mask!LOL! ::)If EA was better,Blizzard would have collapsed by now,or earlier than WW.Not necesarrily, considering how much longer WW has been around, when compared with blizzard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 They should get subsidised? Their games are an art form? OMFG, now I am 100% certain they imbed subliminal messages into their games or something. THEY'RE JUST GAMES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! (And mediocre ones at that.)Don't try to state that making games is not making art.The movies in the Warcraft games. What do you call them?It's art, all of it.And if you look at Blizzard's games without looking only negative, you'll see how good they are at their work. Better than Westwood was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 I prefer interludes and beginning-and-end-movies because they don't take up more than 1 CD's space.And for goodness sake,you don't need 1 movie per mission! ::)And no matter what,it depends on your choice of game manufacturer.Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 I prefer interludes and beginning-and-end-movies because they don't take up more than 1 CD's space.And for goodness sake,you don't need 1 movie per mission! ::)Which is exactly what Blizzard does :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 I liked the graphics they used to do the end fight scene between Arthas and Illidan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 :) I haven't got FT yet...maybe I might have to wait a few weeks again because it's sold out again! >:(And I got school and am not free to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Don't try to state that making games is not making art.The movies in the Warcraft games. What do you call them?1. Watch me: VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT AN ART! None of them! Not just Blizzard, but WW, Microsoft, Activision, all of them - they're just games. You know, for fun?2. "Cheap"? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Don't try to state that making games is not making art.The movies in the Warcraft games. What do you call them?1. Watch me: VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT AN ART! None of them! Not just Blizzard, but WW, Microsoft, Activision, all of them - they're just games. You know, for fun?2. "Cheap"? ;)1.They are an art!The UNIQUE way you DESIGN and MANIPULATE your IDEAS.2.Wha...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 1. Whatever... :O2. Well, they couldn't even get real actors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 1.OK then.2.Who needs real actors?Using animations enable having special effects and supped-up stuff like the thrall's vision battle movie and mannoroth,if not,what do you expect?Some nerd under a mannoroth suit?LOL.Or Ozzy Osbourne as Arthas?LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Or perhaps they could use a combination of Real Actors and digitized effects, like in real movies. StarCraft/WarCraft3's movies look so cartoonish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollyon Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Computer games are certainly an art form. More specifically they comprise a huge array of different art forms: Music, sound, graphical, creative writing, architecture and many many more besides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowzeewee Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 They do not look cartoonish. ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 Or perhaps they could use a combination of Real Actors and digitized effects, like in real movies. StarCraft/WarCraft3's movies look so cartoonish.I strongly disagree.They look stunningly real for computer graphics to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.