Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Warcraft and Warcraft II Coming to Modern PCs "In Some Form or Fashion"

Blizzard is working on updating Warcraft and Warcraft II to allow their real-time strategy classics to work on current PCs, the company revealed over the weekend at the BlizzCon extravaganza. Polygon quotes World of Warcraft production director J. Allen Brack's response to a question about the games by saying a "side project" is in the works related to being able to play these older games, though he hedges saying this will be "to do something like that in some form or fashion." Here's the full quote:

So, we actually have a guy on our team actually several guys on our team who are actually working on a side project to do something like that in some form or fashion. We're fans of Warcraft 1, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, and we'd love to replay those games for sure.

View
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

42. No subject Nov 12, 2013, 18:22 bhcompy
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 12, 2013, 17:08:
bhcompy wrote on Nov 12, 2013, 16:35:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 22:28:
bhcompy wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 20:39:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.

... and that's different then say losing your first few units in CoH? All RTS games are going to be painful if you lose units early in the game. The only real difference between the games is pace. CoH is a fast paced over quick game. Warcraft and the like are more strategy, building and resource based games that take more time and planning to play. I'll take another AoE over Warhammer any day of the week, but we'll never see it because most people simply don't want to invest the time or thought into it. ADD is an exaggeration but it's basically true.

CoH was less punishing for losing early units. Less focus on micro, more on macro. *craft games are completely focused on micro, for people that are doped up on ritalin.

Um you got your micro and macro backwards. CoH requires micro, you can't simply macro in CoH or you'll get slaughtered. You have to get right in there and micro manage all your individual units for best position and cover or you'll lose them. Dunno where you get the idea *craft games are completely focused on micro, base building and resource collecting are macro, micro is when you finally engage the enemy. If anything the *craft games have a balance between micro and macro, it's CoH that's heavily focused on micro.

EDIT heh all this CoH talk has me itching to fire up a game... must resist, must do chores, GTA has been eating way too much into my other activities this last month... must put down the games for awile, must resist temptation to just play games 24\7...

Because of build queues, passive resource collection, passive building, simple upgrade methods, and low population caps, CoH is much less micro. In *craft you must monitor all of your units and buildings even while you are sending out all your units because lost seconds of building results in a loss very fast, unlike CoH where you hit a population cap fairly quickly and instead just make sure you have a queue.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. No subject Nov 12, 2013, 17:08 Yosemite Sam
 
bhcompy wrote on Nov 12, 2013, 16:35:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 22:28:
bhcompy wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 20:39:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.

... and that's different then say losing your first few units in CoH? All RTS games are going to be painful if you lose units early in the game. The only real difference between the games is pace. CoH is a fast paced over quick game. Warcraft and the like are more strategy, building and resource based games that take more time and planning to play. I'll take another AoE over Warhammer any day of the week, but we'll never see it because most people simply don't want to invest the time or thought into it. ADD is an exaggeration but it's basically true.

CoH was less punishing for losing early units. Less focus on micro, more on macro. *craft games are completely focused on micro, for people that are doped up on ritalin.

Um you got your micro and macro backwards. CoH requires micro, you can't simply macro in CoH or you'll get slaughtered. You have to get right in there and micro manage all your individual units for best position and cover or you'll lose them. Dunno where you get the idea *craft games are completely focused on micro, base building and resource collecting are macro, micro is when you finally engage the enemy. If anything the *craft games have a balance between micro and macro, it's CoH that's heavily focused on micro.

EDIT heh all this CoH talk has me itching to fire up a game... must resist, must do chores, GTA has been eating way too much into my other activities this last month... must put down the games for awile, must resist temptation to just play games 24\7...

This comment was edited on Nov 12, 2013, 17:20.
 
Avatar 21539
 
PSN id PR345(PS3) PST Wanna jam? Hit me up on PSN, Mention Blues News.

Looking for an active crew in GTA 5? I'm a Crew lieutenant for VCCM, adults only, 500+ members.

CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. No subject Nov 12, 2013, 16:35 bhcompy
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 22:28:
bhcompy wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 20:39:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.

... and that's different then say losing your first few units in CoH? All RTS games are going to be painful if you lose units early in the game. The only real difference between the games is pace. CoH is a fast paced over quick game. Warcraft and the like are more strategy, building and resource based games that take more time and planning to play. I'll take another AoE over Warhammer any day of the week, but we'll never see it because most people simply don't want to invest the time or thought into it. ADD is an exaggeration but it's basically true.

CoH was less punishing for losing early units. Less focus on micro, more on macro. *craft games are completely focused on micro, for people that are doped up on ritalin.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. No subject Nov 12, 2013, 15:28 Yosemite Sam
 
Suppa7 wrote on Nov 12, 2013, 03:46:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

That wasn't the problem with RTS. The problem is it became too much to manage because unit AI for autoharvesting tended to be bad. Note how good harvesting is in starcraft 2 compared to previous RTS games for instance.

It free's up time to manage your units during battle when you don't have to babysit your economy.

In small scale RTS games you'd be right, but the more units you have to control the more it's just had user interface and game design getting in the way of managing large scale armies.

Ya I can see your point when it comes to huge scale, like say Supreme Commander, but SC didn't dump it's economy, just moved it all into base building. AoE was pretty huge scale and it also had the largest economy, 4 if I remember correctly, and it had complex base building too. It was very manageable (I found it easier then CoH) but you had to plan, build up your resources and your base. It took time, time most people don't want to invest in a game, which is why they... simplify ... everything now. Make the games easier and quicker, straight into the action and game over inside of 30 min.
 
Avatar 21539
 
PSN id PR345(PS3) PST Wanna jam? Hit me up on PSN, Mention Blues News.

Looking for an active crew in GTA 5? I'm a Crew lieutenant for VCCM, adults only, 500+ members.

CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. No subject Nov 12, 2013, 03:46 Suppa7
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

That wasn't the problem with RTS. The problem is it became too much to manage because unit AI for autoharvesting tended to be bad. Note how good harvesting is in starcraft 2 compared to previous RTS games for instance.

It free's up time to manage your units during battle when you don't have to babysit your economy.

In small scale RTS games you'd be right, but the more units you have to control the more it's just had user interface and game design getting in the way of managing large scale armies.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 22:46 {PH}88fingers
 
in competitive war2 (on kali of course) you couldn't use humans. if you did you would get your ass handed to you in no time.

Bloodlust was just way too OP, humans was used as novelty, when messing around
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 22:28 Yosemite Sam
 
bhcompy wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 20:39:
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.

... and that's different then say losing your first few units in CoH? All RTS games are going to be painful if you lose units early in the game. The only real difference between the games is pace. CoH is a fast paced over quick game. Warcraft and the like are more strategy, building and resource based games that take more time and planning to play. I'll take another AoE over Warhammer any day of the week, but we'll never see it because most people simply don't want to invest the time or thought into it. ADD is an exaggeration but it's basically true.
 
Avatar 21539
 
PSN id PR345(PS3) PST Wanna jam? Hit me up on PSN, Mention Blues News.

Looking for an active crew in GTA 5? I'm a Crew lieutenant for VCCM, adults only, 500+ members.

CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 20:56 dj LiTh
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:15:
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 17:34:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 10:27:
Uh, in WC2 the two sides were IDENTICAL until castle phase, and then bloodlust was the only significant difference between Horde and Alliance.

And why is this a big project, Blizzard? WC1 works great in DosBOX, and WC2 still works out of the box, last time I checked.

Actually no, thats not true. Units that were the same tier had different hp and different attack damage. In WC1 it was identical, so check again.

Sorry, you're the one who is misremembering. Here are the unit lists from WC2 to include theirs stats:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1871
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1874

Note the IDENTICAL statistics between equivalent units. The ONLY difference between sides was with spell casters and the Ranger vs. Berserker, all of which only became unlocked in the Castle tier. Everything else is identical. IDENTICAL. This in fact was one of the reasons I preferred Red Alert at the time: two VERY distinct sides with unique playstyles.

Hmmm, looks like i was wrong, kudos. Not sure why i was thinking wc2 had different unit stats and wc1 had the same... :/ Anyways still have fond memories of both wc1 and wc2
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 20:52 Scheherazade
 
Technically, the WC2 unit costs were different.
Humans were very gold intensive, Orcs were wood intensive.

Gold was always at a shortage compared to wood, so I preferred Orcs in multiplayer.

Also, bloodlust would be cast individually and would stay on as a buff, but the knight's heal spell would be cast individually during combat in the instant it was needed.
It was micro hell to use heal, but bloodlust you could spam before a fight and it lasted the entire fight.
Orcs were just easier to do good with in WC2.



WC1 wise, the only change I would want is the ability to select more than 4 units.


Oh, and make both internet playable.
AFAIK WC2 bnet edition doesn't work on bnet anymore, or at least last I tried.

The two games I played every day on BBS' were : Doom2, and WC2.
Lots of good times had with WC2. Lots.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 20:39 bhcompy
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 18:19 Taskeen
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Speaking of gathering resources. In Age of Empires II and Warcraft, I would cut narrow paths through the thick forested areas of maps until I got the edge of the map where I would build an alternate backup bases as a last hold out :-D
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 18:15 Scottish Martial Arts
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 17:34:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 10:27:
Uh, in WC2 the two sides were IDENTICAL until castle phase, and then bloodlust was the only significant difference between Horde and Alliance.

And why is this a big project, Blizzard? WC1 works great in DosBOX, and WC2 still works out of the box, last time I checked.

Actually no, thats not true. Units that were the same tier had different hp and different attack damage. In WC1 it was identical, so check again.

Sorry, you're the one who is misremembering. Here are the unit lists from WC2 to include theirs stats:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1871
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1874

Note the IDENTICAL statistics between equivalent units. The ONLY difference between sides was with spell casters and the Ranger vs. Berserker, all of which only became unlocked in the Castle tier. Everything else is identical. IDENTICAL. This in fact was one of the reasons I preferred Red Alert at the time: two VERY distinct sides with unique playstyles.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 18:09 Yosemite Sam
 
Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.
 
Avatar 21539
 
PSN id PR345(PS3) PST Wanna jam? Hit me up on PSN, Mention Blues News.

Looking for an active crew in GTA 5? I'm a Crew lieutenant for VCCM, adults only, 500+ members.

CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 17:44 Kajetan
 
Topevoli wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 17:25:
For the record, you can run WC3 at higher resolutions and with Widescreen support.
But it doesnt matter because the UI is simply stretched from 4:3 to 16:9 or 10 and you have always the same view of your surroundings. Which is fair, when you consider playing a MP game, but its a little bit dissapointing that the SP campaigns "suffer" from this descision.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 17:35 Taskeen
 
They would make money regardless if they don't really change the engine layout of those games, but they would probably make an assload if they simply remade all of them on an upgraded engine like SC2 as an epic trilogy of the stories in those games.

Unfortunately I realize they probably won't do that, since they are going to milk whatever money they can from Warcraft gamers that prefer the originals, and want a return to that Warcraft game-type, and not World of Warcraft.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 17:34 dj LiTh
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 10:27:
Uh, in WC2 the two sides were IDENTICAL until castle phase, and then bloodlust was the only significant difference between Horde and Alliance.

And why is this a big project, Blizzard? WC1 works great in DosBOX, and WC2 still works out of the box, last time I checked.

Actually no, thats not true. Units that were the same tier had different hp and different attack damage. In WC1 it was identical, so check again.
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 17:33 NetHead
 
@TangledThorns, you can make Warcraft 3 run in pretty much any resolution, should be able to get the info easily with a seach like Warcraft 3 Widescreen.

--

It would be nice if they updated them all and put them all into one package in a modern engine, though that would require actual work and time rather than just doing the bare minimum to milk their old crap.

Lets face it, really great games in their time but today if you're going to put time into a game it's better spent elsewhere unless they give them major updates and overhauls. Warcraft 3 would be bearable or okay but going any further back there are far better games I'd rather play on my phone than the likes of Warcraft 2 if it's just patched to work on modern systems.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Both work fine now, remaster them? Nov 11, 2013, 17:28 Scottish Martial Arts
 
JohnBirshire wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 14:15:
I replayed both about a year ago for nostalgia, had no problem whatsoever with them. They work fine now. If they want to "remaster" them with some updates, more modern UI's, widescreen support, etc, great! But just "making them work" is unnecessary.

I'd just settle for making them available through digital distribution. Again, they work fine as is. I still have my disc copies, but I would imagine a lot of people don't. Given that they're both still great games that have held up well, no reason to keep them unavailable for purchase.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 17:25 Topevoli
 
For the record, you can run WC3 at higher resolutions and with Widescreen support. Google it. It still holds up pretty well (except the extremely close camera).  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 16:39 Xero
 
I imagine they might remaster them using some sort of SC2 engine tweaks or they are testing a future Warcraft 4 RTS game with maybe a new engine that they'll just convert WC1 or WC2 into? Hey, wishful thinking, but yeah, the good days of Blizzard are long behind.  
Avatar 16605
 
Currently playing: Skyrim
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo