Warcraft II on Intel macs??

Discussion in 'Games' started by jamesmcd, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. jamesmcd macrumors 6502a

    jamesmcd

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    #1
    Pretty obvious what I am after here.

    I have an Intel mac, and i want to be able to run Warcraft II.

    I know that Classic cannot run on these macs, so is there some old PPC for Mac OS X patch or something?
     
  2. jamesmcd thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jamesmcd

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
  3. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #5
    Nope. :(

    I dont think they're gonna bother either personally. I know on Battle.net the Diablo and WC2 servers only have like maybe 100 people on at once, compared to the about 30,000 playing Brood War. >> <<

    *Goes to play some more Brood War*

    Best bet is to play it on your iBook, your iMac G4, or dig up a older Mac. o_O Sorry dude. :/

    I dont think they're gonna bother also due to the amount of resources they'd have to spend into updating the old code from Classic to OSX then to Universal.
     
  4. DougTheImpaler macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    #6
    Well, if it didn't get updated for OS X it won't get updated for Intel Macs. And since it never got updated for OS X that means it runs in Classic, which Intel Macs are lacking. It's disappointing, but I hope they at least port their OS X games to Intel...since they really share the same code base with Windows (or, at least, they should in order to facilitate fixing bugs) it shouldn't be that hard to do. Starcraft may be OK in Rosetta, but Diablo II has a bug they're fixing and I hope they just port it while they're at it. :D
     
  5. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #7
    It does work on SheepShaver (sort of), and since there's an x86 native version of SheepShaver, theoretically it can be run on Intel Macs. Not really playable though, unless the x86 version is better (and you also have to track down a generic OS 9.0 or earlier install CD). However, it runs on Basilisk II as well (since it's a 68K game), and runs much better, though the speed is still a little lacking. However, the x86 version of Basilisk II has a JIT compiler instead of just an interpreter, so it should be quite a bit faster. I'm not sure if there's a native OS X x86 version of Basilisk II yet; somehow I don't think so. The other question would be networking, and I haven't a clue if that works or not. These emulators are still being developed though, so it's not like there's no hope.

    --Eric
     
  6. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #8
    wow, war II... it was a great game, but pretty simplistic compared to war III or even starcraft. I don't think I could ever go back!
     
  7. jamesmcd thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jamesmcd

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    #9
    To be honest, War 3 was just an attempt to have some nice eye-candy IMO.

    I prefered the more simpler graphics in the War II.

    I feel the same about some other games too, for instance, Myst III looked good, Myst IV looks pretty good, Myst V... Stuped.

    Same with SimCity 3000 to 4.
     
  8. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #10
    I disagree, I think the game play is far superior to the graphics and thats why I played around 1000 games on battle.net, not for the graphics. (which I kind of also did with Warcraft 2 and Starcraft... damn you blizzard!)
     

Share This Page