WarCraft III Megathread

[matrix123mko]

story wise perhaps, but in all other aspects they could have definitely gotten wins.

with some luck that will happen with patches and time. and with some more luck by that time it'll be on sale.

saddens me to see blizzard is now in the "wait a year before you buy" camp. it's actually surprisingly true for wow expansions too now that i think about it.

Also, the repgates are lowered then.

[Harbour]

Visuals of Reforged are disgusting. Started the gampaign, turned it off few minutes later.

[Farrarie]

it shouldv looked like this 0:59

[Skorpionss]

https://imgur.com/a/xwDwWwl - a few screenshots I took ingame at 4k resolution.

If you honestly look at those and say they look bad or worse than some mods then I don't know what to tell you other than to see an eye doctor.

[Jotaux]

It's nothing but review bombing. It may have not met people's standards but its not a 1.1 game... that's a broken and unplayable game, that's Ride to Hell level games. Realistic it's probably closer to 5ish, average and not worth the price, play the original.

The game is broken, I just get auto defeat when I try to play.

[therealbowser]

The review bombing is very real, but even the (mostly unbiased) critics have come to the conclusion that this game was largely a flop. 63 metascore, all of them talking about how this game has bugs and has been scaled back, lazily handled. Some of them mention that the game feels unfinished with core features missing. I guess the interns didn't do a good enough job with the game. Shocking...

I am very disappointed. I don't plan on buying this game unless it goes on sale... substantially. And t his was a game I was hyped up for, for over a year. Blizzard finds new ways to disappoint me every day, it seems.

In short, I wouldn't say this game is ~1/10 quality as players are trying to make it look like, but it's definitely not worth buying at its current price point. Genuinely bad remaster from all accounts.

[Onikaroshi]

The review bombing is very real, but even the (mostly unbiased) critics have come to the conclusion that this game was largely a flop. 63 metascore, all of them talking about how this game has bugs and has been scaled back, lazily handled. Some of them mention that the game feels unfinished with core features missing. I guess the interns didn't do a good enough job with the game. Shocking...

I am very disappointed. I don't plan on buying this game unless it goes on sale... substantially. And t his was a game I was hyped up for, for over a year. Blizzard finds new ways to disappoint me every day, it seems.

I mean, 63 is pretty average, basically a "don't buy first day, wait for sale score", not a flop.

Hell, 63 is actually ABOVE average.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

I mean, 63 is pretty average, basically a "don't buy first day, wait for sale score", not a flop.

Hell, 63 is actually ABOVE average.

63 is very well below average for a competent game

[therealbowser]

I mean, 63 is pretty average, basically a "don't buy first day, wait for sale score", not a flop.

63 is pretty bad. Anything below 75 is very low quality. Unless it's a ~$10 indie game where you have a handful of reviews and you don't really care if you lose what you put into it, it's bad. And for a major company like Blizzard that used to do massively successful games (let alone that Warcraft III was all but a masterpiece in its day), 63 is just about unforgiveable.

Sure, though, I agree it's definitely a "wait and see", or in my case, "wait until it goes on sale and maybe buy it". I'd need a demo to decide if it's even partially worth it.

I mean if you score 63 on a major test in school or college, would you consider yourself doing "pretty average"? You can apply that same logic to metascores, with a little more leniency to be fair. This game failed the test.

[Onikaroshi]

63 is very well below average for a competent game

63 is literally 13 points above average on a 100 point scale.

[therealbowser]

63 is literally 13 points above average on a 100 point scale.

A 50 metascore isn't 'average', it's complete trash that shouldn't be touched by anyone. You have a very strange view of what 'average' is, and don't seem to understand game reviews. 50 means half of the game is bad, this means the game is basically unplayable, it doesn't mean "the game is okay". When it comes to spending money, I would rather buy a good game than an "average" or "okay" one, let alone a genuinely bad one. 75 is "average"... if you really push it, in terms of the game being worth giving a try if it appeals to you or isn't too expensive. Anything below 80 is something I have to make special consideration for, as in I do my own research on the game and decide that I want it.

Warcraft III's remaster costs far too much for what it's offering, and a 63 is barely above the point where I'd even give something a brief consideration. If you think "50" is average, you either do not play "50" games (as any sane person shouldn't) or you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm leaning towards the latter here, no offense.

Mind you, critics aren't always necessarily right, but that's why Metacritic is useful--it's the average of a wide variety of critics, not merely the opinion of a single one.

[BeepBoo]

AVGN literally makes tons of money of showing the world all those broken games. Where the hell do people get the idea that games "way back" were delivered as a full package when you had to buy it and when you realised it was broken you couldn't do much about it. No patches or refunds since you've opened and used it.

I'm struggling to remember even ONE game from late 90s/early 2000s on my PC or PS2 that had "game breaking" issues or actual major bugs. I'm struggling to remember even "minor" bugs, but I'm sure they existed and I just wasn't aware.

Most games I can remember pre-digital download or "patch broken stuff" era are:

Mechwarrior 3
Starcraft
Age of empires
Sims
IDK... plenty of others.

Any game I bought I never had issues installing it, running it, or having it crash on me, and I didn't even have a PC with a discrete gpu until like... 2005.

The only thing "more complicated" about games now is a bunch of garbage shit that isn't as important as gameplay, like graphics and/or overly complicated systems, such as the addition of bullets as actual projectiles with collision, etc.

[Onikaroshi]

A 50 metascore isn't 'average', it's complete trash that shouldn't be touched by anyone. You have a very strange view of what 'average' is, and don't seem to understand game reviews. 50 means half of the game is bad, this means the game is basically unplayable, it doesn't mean "the game is okay". When it comes to spending money, I would rather buy a good game than an "average" or "okay" one, let alone a genuinely bad one. 75 is "average"... if you really push it, in terms of the game being worth giving a try if it appeals to you or isn't too expensive. Anything below 80 is something I have to make special consideration for, as in I do my own research on the game and decide that I want it.

Warcraft III's remaster costs far too much for what it's offering, and a 63 is barely above the point where I'd even give something a brief consideration. If you think "50" is average, you either do not play "50" games (as any sane person shouldn't) or you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm leaning towards the latter here, no offense.

Mind you, critics aren't always necessarily right, but that's why Metacritic is useful--it's the average of a wide variety of critics, not merely the opinion of a single one.

It's litterally 13 points above an average 100 point score, the INDUSTRY makes it seem like anything below 80 is trash.

And yes, I do often play "50% of a game" because I don't play pvp so I will buy something like CoD just for the single player. I do the same with WCIII

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

63 is literally 13 points above average on a 100 point scale.

Okay, dude. "Average" refers to the median of a selection; say, "the class average is 75%" It for sure does not mean that because the lowest possible score is 0, the average is 50, that's just the mid point of the scale.

As for WarIII:Reforged, of the video game releases from the last 90 days, they are currently around 64 0f 74. There are only like 10 games worse than WarIII, with the lowest being 44. WarIII being scored closer to the bottom than to the top.

It's damn well below average.

[therealbowser]

It's litterally 13 points above an average 100 point score, the INDUSTRY makes it seem like anything below 80 is trash.

And yes, I do often play "50% of a game" because I don't play pvp so I will buy something like CoD just for the single player. I do the same with WCIII

You misunderstand me. When I Say 50% of the game is bad, I don't mean "The PvP is unplayable, but the story is okay" I mean, that half of the game has problems. Be it bugs, bad storytelling, or specific parts of the game. It's part of the package and a ton of it is bad.

Warcraft III has a great story but as a remaster, why are you buying it? For the same story Warcraft III unmastered already had? For pretty graphics and downgraded cutscenes, for game breaking bugs and cut content? Nah, this game has huge problems, the only reason it's not less is because Warcraft III itself was a great game with an excellent story, and even with this game pulling that down as hard as it can, Warcraft III manages to keep at least part of that.

This remaster is horribly flawed. You can argue that this game is fun and worth buying, but 63 is not "average". That's garbage. Go score 63 on a test in school or college and tell them you were just "average" and should have passed. Will that fly? No. You made too many mistakes. It's the same with this game. It made too many mistakes, and it's only a pale shadow of what it could have been.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, dude. "Average" refers to the median of a selection; say, "the class average is 75%" It for sure does not mean that because the lowest possible score is 0, the average is 50, that's just the mid point of the scale.

As for WarIII:Reforged, of the video game releases from the last 90 days, they are currently around 64 0f 74. There are only like 10 games worse than WarIII, with the lowest being 44. WarIII being scored closer to the bottom than to the top.

It's damn well below average.

Thank you, this was explained much more eloquently than I could have done.

[Mad_Murdock]

I'm struggling to remember even ONE game from late 90s/early 2000s on my PC or PS2 that had "game breaking" issues or actual major bugs. I'm struggling to remember even "minor" bugs, but I'm sure they existed and I just wasn't aware.

.

Guess it depends on how you count game breaking bugs. Serious Sam back in the day would crash on launch on a AMD system with a Sound Blaster sound card. Early Skyrim would crash on launch until you went in and change the audio playback to something like 44.1Hz. The catch at least for PC gamers is some game breaking bugs would be hardware combination and some have workarounds, it depended on the user to be tech savvy enough to know how to look up a fix, especially for 90s and early 2000 games

[BeepBoo]

Serious Sam

Don't know wtf that game is, but suffice to say I only ever played big name titles you'd find on store shelves at places like walmart or EB games, or what you could rent from blockbuster. Maybe that's why? I only ever did AAA titles, and back then, maybe AAA titles didn't suffer from garbage that indie devs did. Now, the whole industry seems to suffer.

Early Skyrim would crash

Skyrim was released in 2011 dawg. Well past the prime of "games that didn't have internet access and therefore an easy scapegoat developers could use to say they'll fix things after the fact"

[sam86]

I think it might be the opposite. They probably didn't get enough pre-orders (since no one trusts blizzard with pre-orders anymore) to justify the cost of all the promises in 2018, so they HoTS'd the team and outsourced the art to Malaysia while also scaling back scope of the project.

not enough pre-order? mmo champ was all over drooling for wc3 reforge, even i was
if not they admit in an interview in same blizzcon that they will use same engine, i'd pre-ordered it myself, since then, i at least manage to stop me and my rl friend from pre-order, who was still skeptical and thought i was stupid to not do so

[david0925]

63 is literally 13 points above average on a 100 point scale.

so you're telling me everything that is scaled on a 100 point scale always has 50 points as average? I think all of your classes' test scores when you attended them would indicate otherwise because the average definitely fluctuate a lot despite having 100 as max and 0 as min.

[Jastall]

The review bombing is very real, but even the (mostly unbiased) critics have come to the conclusion that this game was largely a flop. 63 metascore, all of them talking about how this game has bugs and has been scaled back, lazily handled. Some of them mention that the game feels unfinished with core features missing. I guess the interns didn't do a good enough job with the game. Shocking...

I am very disappointed. I don't plan on buying this game unless it goes on sale... substantially. And t his was a game I was hyped up for, for over a year. Blizzard finds new ways to disappoint me every day, it seems.

In short, I wouldn't say this game is ~1/10 quality as players are trying to make it look like, but it's definitely not worth buying at its current price point. Genuinely bad remaster from all accounts.

Yeah, 1/10 is a gross exaggeration, but there's no way in hell that this is the best Blizzard could do. The bugs, the janky animations, the cut/missing features, fucking up the Classic game client, the total lack of marketing, everything points to this being a rush job that was pushed out the door, and a masterpiece like Warcraft 3 deserves better.

I still like the new graphics, and the original game is good enough that I'll play through all the campaigns, but I'm happy I paid this in tokens rather than money.