The point wich you are failing to see is that WoW and Warcraft 3 where the same game, this is fact, dont dispute it cause it makes you look ignorant.
At first I didn't give a shit about this, nor did I even really address they're "dual-identity", but since you're wrong, I'll attack that theory just to spite you.
Quote from "mobygames.com" »
WarCraft III originally debuted at ECTS 1999 as a much different game than the final product. The original idea was to make it a RPS, Role Playing Strategy game, incorporating both RTS and RPG elements together. Although some RPG elements are still present, many were cut. Originally you exclusively controlled heroes, with your extra units being "attached" to them. The game was in more of a 3rd-person perspective (which you can see if you zoom the camera in all the way), and you would explore with your hero (camera fixed on him), completing quests and defeating your opponents. However, due to various reasons (one being that the game was turning out to be very similar to their MMORPG, World of WarCraft which was being worked on as well), the camera angle was scaled back and the game was turned into more of a traditional RTS with some RPG elements.
This implies that these were two separate projects being developed simultaneously. It's not that they're the same game at all, as they are not.
This article is the oldest one on Gamespot I could find and based on the kind of game elements they're talking about, they're obviously referring to an RTS. Not an MMORPG. World of Warcraft was announced a year later after the huge success of the RTS.
And by the way, if you really think it's so true, then how come I cannot find it anywhere? It seems to me that you're just speculating bullshit.
Is there something wrong with ladies?
Or do you just want to prove your masculinity? (not much of a man if you need to make sexists remarks to prove it IMO)
I was implying that you lack balls. Get with the program, you punk bitch.
I take it you wont debate me on this one mutton?
So there really was no point in what you said.
Yea your a good debater :rolleyes:
How fucking stupid can you be? That was one out of several paragraphs and just because one of them doesn't revolve around you that means you win? Sounds like you've got some self-confidence issues.
Whats the difference between that and a normal game? woops i got you there didnt I?
You didn't get me on anything. What is supposed to classify as a normal game, as this is new terminology in this thread. Way to put words in my mouth, jackass.
Are you trying to lecture me about games? Just look it up, Warcraft 3 was going way to much rpg so they remade the game into Warcraft 3 and WoW. (so that they could go even further in the rpg aspect with WoW)
Just look at graphics, dont they seem awfully the same?
They said it had too many RPG elements. That's not the same as an MMORPG. That means that there was too much RPG and not enough RTS, as it was originally intended to be an RTS with a few RPG elements. And last I checked, it was an RTS, not an MMORTS, so this whole MMORPG implication is bullshit.
But anyways, nice cop-out. The way you tried to forget why we were talking about franchises really covered up the fact that you lost that argument. Except we all know you were wrong.
At first I didn't give a shit about this, nor did I even really address they're "dual-identity", but since you're wrong, I'll attack that theory just to spite you.
This implies that these were two separate projects being developed simultaneously. It's not that they're the same game at all, as they are not.
This article is the oldest one on Gamespot I could find and based on the kind of game elements they're talking about, they're obviously referring to an RTS. Not an MMORPG. World of Warcraft was announced a year later after the huge success of the RTS.
And by the way, if you really think it's so true, then how come I cannot find it anywhere? It seems to me that you're just speculating bullshit.
I was implying that you lack balls. Get with the program, you punk bitch.
How fucking stupid can you be? That was one out of several paragraphs and just because one of them doesn't revolve around you that means you win? Sounds like you've got some self-confidence issues.
You didn't get me on anything. What is supposed to classify as a normal game, as this is new terminology in this thread. Way to put words in my mouth, jackass.
They said it had too many RPG elements. That's not the same as an MMORPG. That means that there was too much RPG and not enough RTS, as it was originally intended to be an RTS with a few RPG elements. And last I checked, it was an RTS, not an MMORTS, so this whole MMORPG implication is bullshit.
But anyways, nice cop-out. The way you tried to forget why we were talking about franchises really covered up the fact that you lost that argument. Except we all know you were wrong.
I laughed so hard at this. Mutton you do realize you just beat up a cripple right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
hard subject for me. D2 rocked. i tried WoW and only stuck with it cuz it had somewhat the same elements (backpack, potions, etc. heck, u can even set up point-and-click desitnations). then i stuck with WoW and still play it. I like the MMO part of it and I think 'World of Diablo' (as i think i heard it) would be rather cool imo. but then D2 was very cool how it was, where u could go solo, or have a few ppl with you. or you could even play offline. so i'm about 50-50 on this one and straddling the fence. As long as they release D3, i'll be happy
He keeps arguing I keep thrashing. That's how I roll.
not quoting the longer post, same thing to me. Awesome reply. I knew it wasnt like it WoW was developed as Warcraft III, just was too bored to check it out. Gj there
Rob Pardo, producer and senior designer on Warcraft III, emphasized that Warcraft III will not be a real-time strategy game. He called it a "role-playing strategy game." Resource management, huge armies, and base building are being scaled back in favor of questing, hero recruitment, and interactive environments. Rather than lead huge armies around the map, you'll command heroes and smaller squads of units.
Now this reminds you of WoW more than Warcraft III? What does Warcraft III have? Heroes, quests/sidequests, base building is way less important than in other RTS, neutral buildings to get stuff as items for your heroes etc and smaller armies. Congratulations, you found an interview that shows that Warcraft III came out as they intended it.
Blizzard has been largely silent regarding Warcraft III for several months now, but news recently surfaced that Mike O'Brien, the former project lead on the game, left Blizzard. In addition, GameSpot learned recently that the game is undergoing a significant change in direction. Specifically, Blizzard decided to reiterate conclusively in the game's design that Warcraft III will be first and foremost a strategy game and not a role-playing game. We managed to catch up to Rob Pardo, lead designer for Warcraft III, to ask him about the changes to Warcraft III's design and explain in more detail the strategic elements that are being reintroduced to the game. We also asked him about Mike O'Brien's departure and how that has affected the development of the game.
as the first quote stated, they were planning to have it more RTS than RPG. An RTS with more RPG elements. Apparently it had more RPG elements than intended, so they did change a bit their way to make it more RTS. Since there was an mmorpg in development with the same setting.
Rob Pardo: Mike was our chief architect on the engine. He was in charge of all the programmers and making sure that the 3D engine was written correctly. He wrote a lot of the low-level code, architecting all the modules and aspects that go into designing the new engine. He was also working with our other teams, trying to make [the engine] flexible enough so that other teams in the future could also use the engine.
Hmm, use the engine in the future huh? I wonder for wich game?
And about that other team, what game are they gonna make in the future?
Warcraft III - the Frozen Throne anyone?
Nah, better dont spill the beans Rob, you wouldnt want to spoil the BIG announcement the "other" team is still working on the original "Warcraft 3" formula making it even a "bigger change" from the previous "craft" games.
Its better we only know how "much the same" Warcraft 3 will become from the previous "Craft" games as opposed to "how different" you wanted it to be before you split up the team to work at two "craft" games instead of only one.
he's talking about Warcraft III now, dont get confused. Warcraft III is way different than the rest of the series. It introduced the term RPS (Role Playing Strategy).
.....And that's where the whole concept of RPS [role-playing strategy] came from. So, what we wanted to do, at the most basic level, was to take a game - a fun RTS game - like the Warcraft series and add in the concept of heroes, quests, items, and a more interactive environment....
and you're saying thats not about what you quoted at first?
you're a funny guy.
....Once we had that as our vision, we had to decide what technology supported that and what user interface to use, and that's where we started going down a different road. Since we had a 3D engine, we talked about different viewpoints and different angles, and we chose one that was fairly flat. You could see a lot of the horizon, and it was almost more of a first-person perspective....
try scrolling with the mouse while playing Warcraft 3. The angle changes, woot. Now why would that make it "originally planned to be WoW" i honestly dont know...
....It really showed off the engine at a beautiful angle, but what eventually ended up happening to us was that we got to a point where we had to take the design in one of two different directions. We either had to make it even more RPG-like and cut back on the scale of units, how many characters there were, and things of that nature, or we had to go the other direction and move the camera up, allow free scrolling, and go more towardwhat we've done previously in our real-time strategy games. That's the easiest way to explain the difference between the two [directions].
and what did they choose? the "move toward what they've done previously in their real-time strategy games". Cause they were making an RTS (RPS) with Warcraft 3 and were planning (if not developing already) their MMORPG.
YOU SUCK.
i'll return that to you, thanks.
alright, its a beta screenshot of WoW. Looks bit more primitive with slightly less textures and worse models but its the same engine. Which isnt the same as Warcraft 3. Blizzard decided to make the WoW graphics look more similar to Warcraft 3 for the main reason that the places shown in Warcraft 3 and expansion would have to look same cause ITS THE SAME PLACES.
i keep saying the same thing cause you dipshit dont get it:
Quote from "ign.com »
[B]August 31, 2001[/B'] - While World of Warcraft was Blizzard's big focus at this year's ECTS, Warcraft III held it's own at the show, and was certainly one of the hottest games at the exhibition. It wasn't on display for the public, we did get a glimpse of Blizzard's progress on the upcoming RTS in their private booth during the show.
Looks like both the games started their development at about the same time... or if they started as the same game they'd have to share their development team. Or hire another one in the process which isnt that likely.
Quote from ign.com again »
Warcraft III Announced
Blizzard takes the series into new territory -- the Role-Playing Strategy genre.
by [B]IGN Staff[/B]
showUSloc=(checkLocale('uk')||checkLocale('au'));document.writeln(showUSloc ? '[B]US, [/B]' : '');[B]September 7, 1999[/B] - Every year Blizzard announces a new title at ECTS, and rumors (or is that hopes?) had gamers and press alike waiting to hear word of either Starcraft 2, or Warcraft III. It looks like fantasy fans have won with Blizzard's announcement of Warcraft III, the latest segment -- and biggest departure yet -- of the realtime strategy series. Unlike earlier iterations of the series which focused on building and development, Warcraft III has been promised to deliver only 30% building, and 70% action. So far, the game sounds like a melding of Warcraft and one of Blizzard's other hot properties, Diablo, by allowing players to focus on base construction, troop tactics and resource management while giving them the ability to interact with towns and buy weapons and tools.
It doesnt remind me of WoW more then it does remind me of Warcraft 3, THATS THE POINT YOU IDIOT.
if thats the point then why are we argueing? I dont know IF Warcraft III was about to end up like WoW, and if its the case it was before its development. Cause both their developments were at about the same time.
WoW graphics don't look "more" simmilar (more then what exactly, genius, Warcraft 3 itself?) they are simmilar, its just optimized for mmo and the time it was released.
considering the plan Blizzard has for WoW, the engine would have to remain for at least 5-6 years from release. With only minor updates. I doubt they'd use an engine they were using before 1999. The WoW engine can handle way more polygons and way better resolutions, antialising etc.
The image you see is exactly the engine it was in before they split the game into WoW and Warcraft 3.
Screenshot comes from the alpha version. to which there's a leaked video from the leaked version from 2003. 1 year after Warcraft 3 release. So according to you, Warcraft 3 and WoW were the same game till 1 year after the release of Warcraft 3. Good thinking there.
your personal insults mean nothing to me, btw. I've learnt to ignore idiots like you and so i shall keep doing.
But the weirdest thing is that you're a WoW fan, and you don't know shit about its history, its difficult for me to grasp how someone can be so oblivious about very simple and basic sense and logics (and facts, with very simple and understandeble valid arguments)
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
your personal insults mean nothing to me, btw. I've learnt to ignore idiots like you and so i shall keep doing.
yea, dopplehanger you arent making any sense. i think that the only reason that i can see is because of your statement, your too simple yes, but your explanations are not understandable or valid.
Why in fuckings god name would they develop two games almost alike and ontop of that IN the Warcraft universe?
they arent that much alike you dipshit. They planned to do Warcraft III as it is now, and they planned an MMORPG in the same universe.
So you mean WoW looked this way one year after Warcraft 3 was released, and you believe that? HAHAHA you're cracking me up with you're foolishness.
(you know we're talking 2003 then right? LOL)
WoW looked that way in its ALPHA version. And yes, WoW had its alpha phase 2003. You can watch the video of the leaked 2003 version to see for yourself. If you cant see that you're either blind or too stupid to get it. Or simply you cant accept your defeat. Cause you arent winning.
Yea keep ignoring logics, valid arguments, legit proof and info, you're really good at ignoring these things.
Keep it up! gj
right, that kind of logic i can make up everyday:
you're fucking retarded, have no idea of how to really debate, you're full of shit and have no brains to accept simple logic facts.
Its as much of a "logical arguement" as you provided with your personal insults. Only i looked up and found some actual proof of what i said. Screenshots included. And by the way, That screenshot you posted and your comment on it got yourself completely owned. Nothing else.
The inverview with Rob Pardo said one thing. That they almost took a wrong step and went over to where their other planned game was going. So they made it more RTS oriented. Blizzard doesnt develop games by accident, and WoW definitely wasnt one.
you can't even say that.... if it is an MMO you will look like the biggest dumbass on earth even if its MOST LIKELY it will not be an MMO blizzard PROBABLY wont try and fix something that isnt broken...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dream as if you'll live forever, and live as if you'll die today. "James Dean"
This implies that these were two separate projects being developed simultaneously. It's not that they're the same game at all, as they are not.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warcraft3reignofchaos/news.html?sid=2569124&mode=previews
This article is the oldest one on Gamespot I could find and based on the kind of game elements they're talking about, they're obviously referring to an RTS. Not an MMORPG. World of Warcraft was announced a year later after the huge success of the RTS.
And by the way, if you really think it's so true, then how come I cannot find it anywhere? It seems to me that you're just speculating bullshit.
I was implying that you lack balls. Get with the program, you punk bitch.
How fucking stupid can you be? That was one out of several paragraphs and just because one of them doesn't revolve around you that means you win? Sounds like you've got some self-confidence issues.
You didn't get me on anything. What is supposed to classify as a normal game, as this is new terminology in this thread. Way to put words in my mouth, jackass.
They said it had too many RPG elements. That's not the same as an MMORPG. That means that there was too much RPG and not enough RTS, as it was originally intended to be an RTS with a few RPG elements. And last I checked, it was an RTS, not an MMORTS, so this whole MMORPG implication is bullshit.
But anyways, nice cop-out. The way you tried to forget why we were talking about franchises really covered up the fact that you lost that argument. Except we all know you were wrong.
I laughed so hard at this. Mutton you do realize you just beat up a cripple right?
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
He keeps arguing I keep thrashing. That's how I roll.
hard subject for me. D2 rocked. i tried WoW and only stuck with it cuz it had somewhat the same elements (backpack, potions, etc. heck, u can even set up point-and-click desitnations). then i stuck with WoW and still play it. I like the MMO part of it and I think 'World of Diablo' (as i think i heard it) would be rather cool imo. but then D2 was very cool how it was, where u could go solo, or have a few ppl with you. or you could even play offline. so i'm about 50-50 on this one and straddling the fence. As long as they release D3, i'll be happy
not quoting the longer post, same thing to me. Awesome reply. I knew it wasnt like it WoW was developed as Warcraft III, just was too bored to check it out. Gj there
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Ermm... all of this has been the worst arguement I've ever heard.
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
1.
Now this reminds you of WoW more than Warcraft III? What does Warcraft III have? Heroes, quests/sidequests, base building is way less important than in other RTS, neutral buildings to get stuff as items for your heroes etc and smaller armies. Congratulations, you found an interview that shows that Warcraft III came out as they intended it.
as the first quote stated, they were planning to have it more RTS than RPG. An RTS with more RPG elements. Apparently it had more RPG elements than intended, so they did change a bit their way to make it more RTS. Since there was an mmorpg in development with the same setting.
Warcraft III - the Frozen Throne anyone?
he's talking about Warcraft III now, dont get confused. Warcraft III is way different than the rest of the series. It introduced the term RPS (Role Playing Strategy).
and you're saying thats not about what you quoted at first?
you're a funny guy.
try scrolling with the mouse while playing Warcraft 3. The angle changes, woot. Now why would that make it "originally planned to be WoW" i honestly dont know...
and what did they choose? the "move toward what they've done previously in their real-time strategy games". Cause they were making an RTS (RPS) with Warcraft 3 and were planning (if not developing already) their MMORPG.
i'll return that to you, thanks.
alright, its a beta screenshot of WoW. Looks bit more primitive with slightly less textures and worse models but its the same engine. Which isnt the same as Warcraft 3. Blizzard decided to make the WoW graphics look more similar to Warcraft 3 for the main reason that the places shown in Warcraft 3 and expansion would have to look same cause ITS THE SAME PLACES.
Looks like both the games started their development at about the same time... or if they started as the same game they'd have to share their development team. Or hire another one in the process which isnt that likely.
if thats the point then why are we argueing? I dont know IF Warcraft III was about to end up like WoW, and if its the case it was before its development. Cause both their developments were at about the same time.
considering the plan Blizzard has for WoW, the engine would have to remain for at least 5-6 years from release. With only minor updates. I doubt they'd use an engine they were using before 1999. The WoW engine can handle way more polygons and way better resolutions, antialising etc.
this just proves how full of shit you are.
link to it is here: http://wow.ogaming.com/gallery/Blast-from-the-Past/week22
Screenshot comes from the alpha version. to which there's a leaked video from the leaked version from 2003. 1 year after Warcraft 3 release. So according to you, Warcraft 3 and WoW were the same game till 1 year after the release of Warcraft 3. Good thinking there.
your personal insults mean nothing to me, btw. I've learnt to ignore idiots like you and so i shall keep doing.
yea, dopplehanger you arent making any sense. i think that the only reason that i can see is because of your statement, your too simple yes, but your explanations are not understandable or valid.
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
they arent that much alike you dipshit. They planned to do Warcraft III as it is now, and they planned an MMORPG in the same universe.
WoW looked that way in its ALPHA version. And yes, WoW had its alpha phase 2003. You can watch the video of the leaked 2003 version to see for yourself. If you cant see that you're either blind or too stupid to get it. Or simply you cant accept your defeat. Cause you arent winning.
right, that kind of logic i can make up everyday:
you're fucking retarded, have no idea of how to really debate, you're full of shit and have no brains to accept simple logic facts.
Its as much of a "logical arguement" as you provided with your personal insults. Only i looked up and found some actual proof of what i said. Screenshots included. And by the way, That screenshot you posted and your comment on it got yourself completely owned. Nothing else.
The inverview with Rob Pardo said one thing. That they almost took a wrong step and went over to where their other planned game was going. So they made it more RTS oriented. Blizzard doesnt develop games by accident, and WoW definitely wasnt one.
Treating people of assholes is not the way I think is the best to understand each other.
Here, you're the biggest asshole.
Plus, you're wrong.
So calm down, write calmly, and dont treat people of fucking morons.
Aren't there any moderators over here?
Edit:If I were one(a mod) I would have kicked you for a few weeks.
Have Fun,
Live your life,
I personally think a new engine would be the best...
Especially if they make a 3D rpg.
Have Fun,
Live your life,
I'm sure youre not so don't say stfu, or stfu.
Have Fun,
Live your life,
Have Fun,
Live your life,
it's stated right there "IT WONT BE A MMO"