It's less specifically the fact that it's an RTS or not, it's what it sacrificed to become what it is. It's a very long subject and I am not going to type it on a forum in response to someone who's already made up their mind.

Yeah I don't have the context of alpha war3 so I am definitely too ignorant to comment.

Correct, I can't see a relationship there, because I'm completely unfamiliar with both.* Which is why I was arguing what I am familiar with: WC3 campaign. And what I said can be partially applied to casual melee maps. And incase you're denying validity to any non-progaming argument: I don't think WC3 was designed to be a successful multi-player / pro scene game, given the success of Brood War in that regard.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this. Again, I'm not part of either scenes.

*) But I guess after Pr0's explanation I can at least see your argument. But imo it's a strawman. You gotta prove why a game can't be "accidentially" work well in both categories. Since they are, in fact, quite similar, engine- and mechanics-wise. While the mechanics part has a different focus, (1 unit vs many and many spells vs just 1 or two) it's still the same framework.

If you are unfamiliar with both then you have no argument to begin with. A campaign is a standalone element, and much of wc3's campaign doesn't even play into the game design as a body.


... Um. Yeah. I guess all those Blizzard-funded tournaments were never intended to be successful.

Look, this thread is about the campaigns of the games. If you're not ready to accept the campaigns as a major part of the game design then maybe you're arguing in the wrong thread. In any case if the only thing you're willing to discuss is wc3 pro gaming melee, then we can stop right here because I'm coming from a completely different angle and have nothing to offer to yours. But I'd probably be interested in what you have to say about it.

Also I'm not sure who here made up their mind already. While you were so high horse on your position that you're not even bothering giving me a proper summary of your position and ignoring or dismissing my statements, I was asking you questions and was trying to get you to properly elaborate.

I mean, RTS and all things related are intrinsically competitive. So you can't dismiss the competitive aspect regardless of what part of the RTS you're talking about, unless it's a part that intentionally opts out of the base game design - which in the case of many low-quality RTS campaigns, they do so by attempting to creating strictly "RPG" maps. Wc3 is a prime offender in this regard. Additionally, for much of the campaign you aren't even making use of the few RTS aspects that remain, because it's all gimmicks instead of gameplay. A gimmick is something to distract rather that fulfill, and Blizzard is a big fan of gimmicks - from arbitrary time constraints to rubbish like Kerrigan's immortal shield in WoL.

If you lack experience in either titles then I will quickly lose you should I discuss the finer elements like active power budgets, utility, and competitive growth, which is where dota and related titles took much of Blizzard's wind. Wc3's campaign is just a slog, the game's name is synonymous with dota because it empowered dota to succeed by failing to provide anything beyond that campaign as a prose much less a game. The reasons why are both plain and complex. Since you're needlepoint focused on hero story delivery there's not much point going deeper than that. Which, unfortunately, is still not a good enough element to redeem wc3 on - story is best told through user interaction, and point-and-click abilities are being steadily deprecated out of related titles for very good reason. At its time wc3 was exemplary of many things, but it has aged poorly for good reason - the design is shallow and lacking engagement. Were Blizzard intent on creating Diablo, they should have stuck to Diablo, instead of shoehorning RPG elements into a genre that loses a great deal by pulling attention away from what makes it definitive. The same can be said for shooters and other genres to see this slapstick development plague them. Blizzard's obsession with making a 3d game cost wc3 any potential it had of standing up to wc2.

Dota's success hinged on more than just wc3 being subpar, but wc3 being subpar set it up with the perfect ingredients it needed to really take off.

/e

I won't bother commenting any further on this since it's off-topic. I have made articles and reviews to this extent in the past, so if you are genuinely interested and not just trying to troll me you can always refer to the usual place for more discussion on the topics.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2017, 2:17 pm by IskatuMesk.

Updated the OP to note that Mirror's Edge has been released, though it had been out for quite a while prior to this post.

The next let's play production is Mass Effect 1.

Review pending for Mass Effect, but the let's play proper has been completed, and it's been added to the list.

My next project will probably be Batman: Arkham Origins, but I'm also heavily considering the new Prey game.

Mass Effect's review is out. Doom videos are trickling in on a daily basis. Review for that game will be out by the end of the month.

Removed all LP/Discussions since they're old/dumb.

Why are you not doing a SC:R let's play? Like right now?

Because it's the same game we all know like the back of our hands? Pretty sure Pr0nogo likes to analyze more than just pretty 4k graphics when he does a let's play.