PDA

View Full Version : Is WarCraft III Worth My Money?


ArtMan617
Jul 4, 2002, 03:00 PM
Dear Anyone Who Has Played WCIII,
Is it worth my hard-earned $50-$60 for the game? I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, but from what I heard it's pretty damn good. Any thoughts?

-ArtMan617

job
Jul 4, 2002, 11:35 PM
As far as I have heard it is worth every cent, especially Bnet. It apparently runs on a system that is far below the recommended system reqs. I have heard that it runs fine on an iMac DV with 400 Mhz 256 MB of RAM and the ubiqutious Ati Rage 128 8MB card. Going of what I have heard from other iMac owners I may buy it this weekend. :D

menoinjun
Jul 4, 2002, 11:47 PM
I think system reqs are 300mhz g3, 64mb raam, 3d video.

Not too high.

-Pete

job
Jul 5, 2002, 12:12 AM
Here you go, the complete system reqs. from the Blizzard site :


Windows® 98/ME/2000/XP

* 400 MHz Pentium II or equivalent
* 128 MB of RAM
* 8 MB 3D video card (TNT, i810, Voodoo 3, Rage 128 equivalent or better) with DirectX® 8.1 support
* 700 MB HD space
* 4X CD-ROM drive

Macintosh® OS 9.0 or higher/ Mac OS X 10.1.3. or higher

* 400 MHz G3 processor
* 128 MB of RAM
* 16 MB ATI Technologies or nVidia chipset 3D video card
* 700 MB HD space
* 4X CD-ROM drive

Recommended

* 600 MHz processor
* 256 MB of RAM
* 32 MB 3D video card
* DirectX(r) 8.1 compatible sound card

Now you see why I am so happy that the game will run on a iMac DV. :D

blissgirl
Jul 5, 2002, 12:12 AM
The graphics and music are great!

If you want to spend the cash, i say it is worth it.

:)

Grokgod
Jul 5, 2002, 12:31 AM
I agree with you.

I played it for a while, well I played for a full day, actually, almost nonstop.

The graphics are a step up from the previous version and the music and sound effects are great. There are also a lot of visual effects that are very pretty to look at.

The game play which is very important for real replay value is rather high.
It can get confusing sometimes with so many characters to control.

One of the few flaws of the game that was carried over to this version sadly is the constant need to upgrade various buidlings and abilities. I find that this takes attention away from actual gameplay and strategy.

Mais ce l'a vie.

I am sure that some people enjoy the constant attention needed to control this area of the gameplay, I find it irritating.

If you like to play battlenet then I would say yes!
Although I havent gotten battle play to work yet, there is a patch that has come out, but I havent installed it yet. I tried to go online without it and the game wasnt able to connect or download the patch. You can get the patch from the Blizarrd website.

I did, but havent tried it yet.

job
Jul 5, 2002, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Grokgod
I agree with you.

I played it for a while, well I played for a full day, actually, almost nonstop.

The graphics are a step up from the previous version and the music and sound effects are great. There are also a lot of visual effects that are very pretty to look at.

The game play which is very important for real replay value is rather high.
It can get confusing sometimes with so many characters to control.

One of the few flaws of the game that was carried over to this version sadly is the constant need to upgrade various buidlings and abilities. I find that this takes attention away from actual gameplay and strategy.

Mais ce l'a vie.

I am sure that some people enjoy the constant attention needed to control this area of the gameplay, I find it irritating.

If you like to play battlenet then I would say yes!
Although I havent gotten battle play to work yet, there is a patch that has come out, but I havent installed it yet. I tried to go online without it and the game wasnt able to connect or download the patch. You can get the patch from the Blizarrd website.

I did, but havent tried it yet.

I'm just curious, what system are you running it on?

Grokgod
Jul 5, 2002, 12:56 AM
Thanks for quoting my entire post right after my entire post, I would have been lost. :P

I am running it on my Ti 800. I would think that 32 megs is MIN for this game because it has plenty of eye candy... etc>!

What worries me is that they put the specs for playing and its at 600 that means my Ti is a mere 200 from being obsolete. cripes!

Runs well no problems except for maybe scrolling, but I am used to playing games on a Pcheese so I am not certain what is standard for Mac games.

job
Jul 5, 2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Grokgod
Thanks for quoting my entire post right after my entire post, I would have been lost. :P

I am running it on my Ti 800. I would think that 32 megs is MIN for this game because it has plenty of eye candy... etc>!

What worries me is that they put the specs for playing and its at 600 that means my Ti is a mere 200 from being obsolete. cripes!

Runs well no problems except for maybe scrolling, but I am used to playing games on a Pcheese so I am not certain what is standard for Mac games.

Here, let me help you again. I don't want you to be lost or anything. :D :D

Sounds like it runs pretty good. btw, according to the system reqs. my computer is already a good 200 Mhz obsolete so don't worry about your Ti. :D

I also heard that there is a slight issue with the cutscenes because they use the Bink media player.

hitman

Grokgod
Jul 5, 2002, 02:26 AM
Yea, that was weird about the cut scenes,,

Didnt work on my iMac but it worked fine on my Ti....
Freaky freaky,,,

The boot up video was great, very realistic 3d animation...

But it wont play again when I start teh game again...
anyone know how to view all that opening 3d again?

Also the update works fine and connects to battlenet now....
If you have the right cd # sheesh, I mean yea, cool !

chewbaccapits
Jul 5, 2002, 03:28 AM
Got mine for 10 bucks....So, yeah....worth every cent...Oh, yeah, I'm a poozer for writing that but got to keep this thread alive somehow....I'd like to see the replies reach at 69...My favorite ##....:º ¶:

coolocity
Jul 5, 2002, 07:53 AM
I bought the Warcraft 3 package with all the extras for $75, and I'd say it's worth it. It comes with some cool books full of artwork, and concept artwork, a DVD, a soundtrack to the game (the music is great.). and some other neat stuff... as for the game...

It runs great on my PC (takes the heat.) I didn't think I'd like the whole "Hero" system, but I must say it makes it much easier to win battles when numbers aern't exactly on your side. I don't have any complaints about this game yet, and I'm definately one to complain :P Buy! Enjoy!

- John

topicolo
Jul 5, 2002, 08:11 AM
I think the reason it doesn't work on your imac is because either you, or the installer didn't get the divx codec installed properly. All of warcraft 3's cutscenes are in divx format and unfortunately, the codec doesn't come standard with a mac installation. If you manually installed divx on your imac, you'll probably get it going.

Macmaniac
Jul 5, 2002, 10:12 AM
Artman617 War 3 is worth every cent! It has awsome graphics and the new Bnet is awsome. Definantly get it! Those of you who do have it come to channel Macrumors on Bnet!

coolocity
Jul 5, 2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Macmaniac
Artman617 War 3 is worth every cent! It has awsome graphics and the new Bnet is awsome. Definantly get it! Those of you who do have it come to channel Macrumors on Bnet!

I won't get too much heat logging into channel Macrumors on my PC will I? :D :D :D

Grokgod
Jul 5, 2002, 02:38 PM
I am surprised that Macrumors works on Pcheeses!

Or actually I should say what the hell are you doing here>

macktheknife
Jul 5, 2002, 03:06 PM
I've tried to figure out how much video RAM I've got on my 550 Mhz Rev B TiBook but no luck. Does anyone know whether it has 8 or 16 MB of VRAM? Thanks.

Catfish_Man
Jul 5, 2002, 03:49 PM
...the massive performance problems on GeForce2mx's noted on arstechnica? Specifically, several people have said that the game is unreasonably slow on an iMac800 (and other machines with GF2mx's), which should have way more than enough power to handle it. All ATI cards seem to be fine, and I'm not sure about the other nVidia cards.

Dr. Distortion
Jul 5, 2002, 05:33 PM
I've run WC III on a PeeCee: Dual Xeon 1.5 ghz, 1 gig RDram, nVidia Quadro 2 pro graphics card (under win2k).
It ran great, even in 1600x1200 mode with all detail levels maxed out.

I also ran it on a 500 mhz iMac, 512 megs ram and an ATI Rage 128 ultra (under osX).
It ran reasonably, with some effects turned to low-medium quality.

Grokgod
Jul 5, 2002, 05:36 PM
And the reason your comparing a 1.5 dual blah blah with a 500 iMac is WHAT?

I put the game on the back of a sow belly pig and it ran great till the pig hit his head on a fence.

I think that was the third comparison. In your tier.

Dr. Distortion
Jul 6, 2002, 05:51 AM
I merely compared those because I actually ran the game on both machines! I can't speculate how it would run on a machine with this and that specs I don't have. I'm not posting a rumor here, this is what I saw.

Besides, it's not intended to be a comparison in the first place! Just draw your own conclusion from this post.

-Dr. D.

[edit:]

P. S. the sheer retardness of some people and will or urge to misinterpret posts here is amazing! 8D

blogo
Jul 6, 2002, 06:03 AM
Warcraft 3 er konge, jeg anbefaler det sterkt

eneste problemet må vel være at få folk her inne kan lese og forstå denne posten :D

Dr. Distortion
Jul 6, 2002, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Eple
Warcraft 3 er konge, jeg anbefaler det sterkt

eneste problemet må vel være at få folk her inne kan lese og forstå denne posten :D

hehe, this must be Norwegian or Swedish...

so, my guess of what you're saying:

"I bought Warcraft 3, I strongly reccomend it"

"if there are problems I'll ask those people here who can read and understand this post"

am I not too far off?

-Dr. D.

resm
Jul 6, 2002, 06:34 AM
eneste problemet må vel være at få folk her inne kan lese og forstå denne posten

maybe not many do....but I do :D

having been in Denmark for many years and learned the language like my mother tongue, I also can read "Norsk" and "Swensk".

So...keep on shooting.

But most of the people in here will prefere english.

This is after all an english speaking forum ;)

resm
Jul 6, 2002, 06:38 AM
Warcraft 3 er konge, jeg anbefaler det sterkt

eneste problemet må vel være at få folk her inne kan lese og forstå denne posten


translated:
"Warcraft 3 is the King, I recommend it strongly
the only problem will probably be that few people in here can read and understand this post" :D

resm
Jul 6, 2002, 06:47 AM
I just came home with War Craft III and I bought it here in Singapore for S$ 69.90....that's US $ 38.98 at today's rate :D

Macmaniac
Jul 6, 2002, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by coolocity


I won't get too much heat logging into channel Macrumors on my PC will I? :D :D :D
No you won't get much heat, I seem to be the only one on the Channel, Please other people get the game so I can play with you on Bnet!

Grokgod
Jul 6, 2002, 09:45 AM
Let me get this straight,,you calling me retarded because you can't tell that posting those two machine in such a manner creates a comparison?

That stating the specs and the manner in which they both ran WC3 IS a comparison! Maybe I better look at your Profile and check your age.

ANything posted together like that will create a comparison.
Let alone computers, come on, reboot your brain.

I was pointing out what a BAD comparison it was. And is!

~Coolocity

Do you have a mac?

Dr. Distortion
Jul 6, 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Grokgod
Let me get this straight,,you calling me retarded because you can't tell that posting those two machine in such a manner creates a comparison?

That stating the specs and the manner in which they both ran WC3 IS a comparison! Maybe I better look at your Profile and check your age.

ANything posted together like that will create a comparison.
Let alone computers, come on, reboot your brain.

I was pointing out what a BAD comparison it was. And is!

~Coolocity

Do you have a mac?

No, you make the comparison AND draw the conclusions. I ofcourse compared them for myself, but I didn't post MY conclusions.

And when I talked about ppl being retarded: this might include you, but not only you. I was talking about the entire macrumors forum here. I just hate it when ppl pretend they "know" and they are "experts" or "power users". You know yourself whether you fit into this group or not, that I'm sure of.

If you think it's bad to compare those two machines, well, then by all means, DON'T compare them. Try wrapping your mind around that a second time and see if you get it. For me, these two machines are the only ones I could install and test WC III on. If you want to donate an Xserve for testing you're welcome. I'm not a hardware reviewer with tons of cache to randomly spend.

Maybe I should look at your profile and look at your infantility... err... age :P

Anyway, I don't intend to flame here (which I'm almost forced to do with such rash replys), so I won't post on this thread again.

-Dr. D.

andyrastetter
Jul 6, 2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Grokgod

Mais ce l'a vie.


Where'd you learn French, it's c'est la vie. Sorry

blogo
Jul 7, 2002, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by resm



translated:
"Warcraft 3 is the King, I recommend it strongly
the only problem will probably be that few people in here can read and understand this post" :D

Good work, you translated it perfectly

ibookin'
Jul 7, 2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
What worries me is that they put the specs for playing and its at 600 that means my Ti is a mere 200 from being obsolete. cripes!


If I read the specs correctly, the 600MHz system that they recommend is a PC, hence the DirectX requirement.

Grokgod
Jul 7, 2002, 08:12 PM
:rolleyes:

Sorry about my French, I never learned it properly,,
Just trying to be FRENCHY...

One Mongoose One Snake

Is anyone making a comparison?
You better not be..:)

Borzoi
Jul 16, 2002, 08:14 PM
my system:
G4/450/2X AGP
Radeon (1st gen.)
256 MbRAM
OS 9.2.2

It looked pretty and ran well through the single player campains with all the settings on medium high until I started hitting battles with more than 12 or so combatants onscreen. Then it became absolutely unplayable. Switched down to all low settings and low screen res. and guess what....still barely playable (and i'm not a stickler for extreme frame rates either.). I haven't even bothered to try b.net yet because of this.

IMHO, if you are looking for an exciting all 3D RTS, you should be buying Sacrifice. With the latest patch it runs great on my system with all the bells and whistles turned up high. Add to that a much sleeker interface, far superior 100% free camera control, better unit management & formation control, less fiddly resource management, the best voice acting I've ever heard in a game, and NO ELVES (heh- not a big elf fan). Compare this to WC3 which has a klutzy interface that takes up half the screen, limited camera control, voice acting that all sounds like California surfer dudes, and mucho diddling around with details while playing to take you out of the action. The only advantages I see of WC3 over Sacrifice is that some people prefer that overly detailed oriented gameplay and that you will never lack for people to play it with online- even if they are b.net vermin. (Sacrifice runs great on Game Ranger now, btw- if you can find people to actually play it)

Considering that Sacrifice now costs $20 USD, if you have an older system and want some very challenging single player and action packed multi-player that isn't just the same old orcs 'n elves you might be doing yourself a favor to save that extra 40-50 bucks you would be spending on warcraft 3----don't believe the hype!

DaedalusDE
Jul 16, 2002, 08:28 PM
I bought the WCIII collectors edition... right now i'm running it on a:

PII 300mhz
Nvidia GF2MX200
384megs ram
56k modem

AND IT RUNS PERFECTLY

HAHAHAHAHAHA TAKE THAT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS!!! I WIN!!!!!

mmmdreg
Jul 19, 2002, 08:14 PM
It is definitely worth spending on...I played it and lurved it...

macktheknife
Jul 19, 2002, 08:48 PM
Here's my specs:

TiBook 550 Mhz
512 MB RAM
16 MB of VRAM
OS X

It runs fairly well for the early campaigns, but when the battle intensifies (try a big melee with necromancers raising the dead) then it gets *real* choppy and the lag gets really bad.

I ran it on my cousin's 1 Gig PIII 256 MB RAM Dell Inspiron and it runs *perfectly*. I just hope that Jaguar will speed things up on my TiBook because it really sucks to for me to have shelled out $2,600 for a machine that can't handle a game that a year-old PC laptop can.

I still love my Mac, so please don't flame me--I'm just pissed that my state-of-the-art TiBook can't handle the game.

macktheknife
Jul 19, 2002, 08:49 PM
The game is awesome. Great graphics, gameplay, and storyline! I got the collector's edition and I must say that the "Art of Warcraft" book is the only extra worth getting. The DVD isn't really all that great and neither is the soundtrack.

So yes, get it if you can! It rocks!

scem0
Jul 19, 2002, 11:58 PM
Lots of people are saying how battle.net is so good. I certainly would enjoy better battle.net after using the crappy mac os x version of starcraft. I really need to start playing warcraft, I have played enough starcraft to make anyone sick of it :D. If you dont believe me check my stats (-black-death-), and take note that this is about my 5th or 6th starcraft account. And I dont disconnect, all the diconnects are from my AOL days :(. It sounds like WC3 is worth the money, and it has great multiplayer playing. I still have yet to buy it.

mmmdreg
Jul 20, 2002, 09:12 AM
Would it run decently on a iMac 600/640MB? 16mb graphics if I remember correctly...BTW, they're G3's..

job
Jul 20, 2002, 01:24 PM
I'm running WC3 on a 450/320MB/8MB Rage 128 iMac at 800*600/32bit color - so to answer your question, it would run fine on your computer.

hitman

buffsldr
Jul 24, 2002, 11:08 PM
i just got wIII and would like to play with some of you guys online, how do i find macrumors people?

job
Jul 25, 2002, 01:26 AM
Go into Battle.net and enter channel Macrumors.

It's in the East Coast section I think.....

A better person to ask would be Macmaniac. :)

Stike
Jul 25, 2002, 02:29 AM
Nice Avatar, mmmdreg! Finally!

WCIII runs on my G4/933 w/ 512 MB and GF4MX/64MB under OS 10.1.5 FLAWLESS!!!

Highest details, everything on, resolution at 1280x1024 (same as desktop) and guess what? It doesn´t slow down a bit! :D

colocolo
Jul 25, 2002, 02:35 AM
I play it mostly on an iBook 600 w/ 384 Megs Ram, it runs just fine until you hit 20 units on the screen. Although i realize i don't have a state-of-the-art Mac, I have yet to hear of one that can handle a lot of units on screen smoothly.

Do you think the bottleneck the 3d card or the processor? Because a change of detail settings doesn't affect how choppy it gets on my system.

Anyone has played it on a 800 Mhz G4 or above? Is it still choppy with many units?

Stike
Jul 25, 2002, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by colocolo

Anyone has played it on a 800 Mhz G4 or above? Is it still choppy with many units?

See above. Nothing choppy on my config. Even the last rush in the "Survive 30 Minutes"-Mission made no difference. Around 20 units? Yes. Plus buildings.

With Folding and iTunes in the background! :eek: :D

The only moments the game slows down to around 20 fps are the realtime cut-scenes, if the camera is moving...

job
Jul 25, 2002, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Stike
The only moments the game slows down to around 20 fps are the realtime cut-scenes, if the camera is moving...

Yeah, I heard that there is a problem with the Bink Media Player under OS X.

It's a shame they do not use Quicktime 6. That would be nice....:)

Stike
Jul 26, 2002, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by hitman


Yeah, I heard that there is a problem with the Bink Media Player under OS X.

It's a shame they do not use Quicktime 6. That would be nice....:)

:confused: Hmm? I said realtime... not the Divx videos... the story-scenes between the missions!

Oh, the Divx videos look great, though. But they could have had more quality if they would have used QT´s MPEG-4.:rolleyes:

wildcat4100
Aug 5, 2002, 02:48 AM
I played it under OS 10.1.5 on my ibook, with the following specs:

600G3/640Mb RAM

and when in combat, it ran slow like a crawl!!! couldn't even control my unit using the mouse!! I think that's the problem of my 8Mb ATI video card....damn can't wait to get the new pro tower:mad: :( :( :(

wildcat4100
Aug 5, 2002, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by colocolo
I play it mostly on an iBook 600 w/ 384 Megs Ram, it runs just fine until you hit 20 units on the screen. Although i realize i don't have a state-of-the-art Mac, I have yet to hear of one that can handle a lot of units on screen smoothly.

Do you think the bottleneck the 3d card or the processor? Because a change of detail settings doesn't affect how choppy it gets on my system.

Anyone has played it on a 800 Mhz G4 or above? Is it still choppy with many units?

forget one thing, I have all the setting on low or off, I tried one combat with 4vs4 and the fight included 3vs3 with ~60 units on screen, framerate dropped like 2/sec.