/vr/ - Retro Games

Held up? No. Still fun? Yes.

Warcraft 2 maybe, but Warcraft 1 is nigh unplayable.

wc1 didnt hold up, 2 and 3 are good up to this day

I remember thinking Starcraft made these games feel archaic, much less playing them now. Warcraft 2 still looks nice, but feels really shallow.

Warcraft 2 does but not Warcraft 1. As an adult, Warcraft 2 is more enjoyable than when I was a kid since I better understand how to play it. Tower cannons and tower archers are the key.

<In a deep voice> "For the kiiiiiing!"

I never got past spells and shit

>>5987661
I still play the dungeon maps of Warcraft 1

>>5987912
3 is not good, then and now. 1 nope, very archaic. 2 is still the same fun, very pretty 2D graphics and simple ogre/mages/towers duels with a bit of rock scissor but not much - it's a simple game really with lots of bits that are useless like 80% of spells or footman besides rush.

Starcraft is superior mechanically and balance wise, warcraft were just toy games with cool campaign and lacking multiplayer in comparison. Broodwar basically sealed the deal.

WC1 is archaic compared to later games in the genre, but it's still a great game that's fun to play. It's just its own thing.

>>5988151
YOUR SOUNDCARD WORKS PERFECTLY

>>5987661
I am going to say yes to both but I have a specific recommendation regarding Warcraft 1.

The main barrier is its archaic controls. No hotkey, multi-unit selection, etc. Every time I have see someone complain about this when trying it out they have also made the mistake of putting the speed at maximum. Don't do this.
Yes it is a very slow game but at its default speed you have plenty of time to react to threats and effectively mobilize your forces. It is meant to be played like this.
The controls, crusty as they are, cannot cope with a fast game speed where an attacking unit will get a dozen attacks off before you have even clicked one unit in response.
Once you get used to this, its a very enjoyable game with decent strategic play.

>>5987661
>The main barrier is its archaic controls. No hotkey, multi-unit selection, etc. Every time I have see someone complain about this when trying it out they have also made the mistake of putting the speed at maximum. Don't do this.
>Yes it is a very slow game but at its default speed you have plenty of time to react to threats and effectively mobilize your forces. It is meant to be played like this.
>The controls, crusty as they are, cannot cope with a fast game speed where an attacking unit will get a dozen attacks off before you have even clicked one unit in response.
>Once you get used to this, its a very enjoyable game with decent strategic play.
b-b-b-but gAMES DON'T AGE!!!!!!!!!!11111111

>>5990636
I usually use Mouse Helper mod so I can order units around via right click. Because the AI is not playing fair at all. It can control way more units and when spells come into play it is able to cast mulitple spells at the same time. It's clearly visible even at Orc lvl 3 when two footmen with three clerics can outtank the entire orc army.

>>5987661
yeah they're pretty good, and their soundtracks are top tier

>>5987661

>only 2 factions
>mechanically identical.

nah.

>>5991197
Well till you get to Tier 2 and start deploying caster units.

>>5987661
>>5990636

I played Warcraft 1 for the first time a couple of weeks ago and it was a good experience. I'm not hugely into real time strategy because the real-time micromanaging annoys me in most games, Age of Empires for example is all about managing your villagers and villager production to get a decent economy, less about unit strategy. In Warcraft a couple of strategies worked out really favourably for me.

I put all my units in 4 group formations that were easy to move and defend with. Human archers are almost insurmountable if you mass them enough together and upgrade the arrows. The only thing the enemy can do against that is make catapults, against which you should have your own catapults, knights or footmen to rush against.

If you move your units slowly and diligently you'll outfight your enemy. I liked the dungeon missions where you had no base precisely because it forced you to preserve your units, using clerics to heal the wounded, moving slowly, covering your archers with footmen and knights. That shit was great.

Warcraft 2 flows more naturally and has somewhat more thought out mechanics though, it's definitely an improvement. Warcraft isn't unenjoyable though.

>>5991197
Humans are defensive and rule the sea. Orcs offensive and rule the land.

>>5990636
I played War1 by changing the game speed to suit the situation (sometimes going to Fast to speed up the early base building phase but never ever Faster, occasionally slowing right down to Slowest to order multiple units like at the start of certain maps before returning it to Normal). I think changing the game speed is an intended tool for the player to have and don't consider it to be bending the rules of the game like using external tools (ye mouse helper guys are wussies!).

>>5991197
>an entire genre of games
>mechanically identical
RTS got old so fucking fast.

>>5991504
Dungeon missions were always the best. This remained true through all of Blizzard's RTS games.

>>5992469
one thing I disliked about 2 is that it had much less neutral units like rogues, sludges etc.
thankfully in 3/tft they doubled down on that and gave us faceless ones, draenei etc.

>>5990779
Warcraft 1 was archaic when it came out.

Warcraft (1) [November 1994]
Command and Conquer [September 1995]

>>5987661
They're not bad, not at all, but the fact that units are identical between orcs and humans, with really just a few differences (in spellcasters), makes it somewhat shallow and dull.
Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are really just much better games. The aesthetics and sound design is great though, and I love the music.

>>5992346
If you only played Warcraft 2, plenty of games made for much more variety.

>>5994693
>the fact that units are identical between orcs and humans, with really just a few differences (in spellcasters), makes it somewhat shallow and dull.
No, I don't get it. Why do you value imbalance?

>>5988349
What's wrong with 3? I enjoyed both the campaign and multiplayer.

Like everyone has pretty much said. Warcraft 2 holds up but Warcraft 1 doesn't. I do love some of the levels from WC1 but WC2 levels are great as well. Multiplayer is fun too.

>>5990590
IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS

>>5996178
Imbalance, are you for fucking real? What a nonsense rationale, a game doesn't need to be symmetrical in player/computer abilities to be balanced, and I would argue that's the least fun approach 9 times out of 10.

Look at Starcraft, all three races are completely asymmetrical to each other, and they all make up for it with their own strengths, units, and special abilities and traits. Looking outside strategy games, fighting games would be SUPER boring if there was no character variety.

>>5996178
But Warcraft 2 is insanely imbalanced.

>>5996778
How? Every player has the exact same units.

>>5996782
spells bro
the only advantage Human got is Invisibility, which doesn't help much against BLOODLUST shitting on your units

>>5996787
How and why would you ever use Invisiblity? I've beaten wc2 tens of times and never used that

>>5987661
never played the first one.
had II when I was a kid. thought it was kind of fun but the lack of variety between the orcs and humans made the game feel lackluster.
Red Alert was the better game I felt and I got a lot more play time out of it.

>>5997146
In multiplayer you can use it for sneaky tactics, like slipping a mage into the enemy base so you can cast blizzard on their workers. Polymorph can also be effective for swinging a battle in your favor, but it takes a lot of skill to use. Same goes for slow.

>>5997146
Unless you're someone else, then why are you advocating talk about balance when your only experience with WC2 is "beating" it?
Anyhow, Human spells in general are simply situational whereas Bloodlust is easy to use and really effective since it's just a flat bonus to your overall army DPS. Polymorph, Slow, Blizzard, Invisibility, Exorcism are all useful in their own way, but way more micro intensive to use (in a way that doesn't really compensate for Bloodlust), so Orc has an edge.
The point of invisibility is to sneak units into enemy base for tactical strikes. Sneak a Mage into an enemy base and do Invisibility/Blizzard bomb runs. Ogre Magi win pretty much every time against your forces in an open mano y mano, and your only resolve is to hold out until you get a decent mass of Mages and their best spells researched.

>>5997175
Yes I'm someone else, and I'm not starting to advocate anything.
From this thread I got the picture that the talk is mainly about SP. I've played MP also, but mostly just SP.
I was curious, because those kinds of mage shenanigans take a lot of time and resources and take your attention away from something that could be much more important meanwhile

>>5987661
Warcraft 2 holds up decently. Especially on campaign missions.

>>5996183
its popular

>>5997235

>>5987661
That's usually a thing with Blizzard games. You can go back to fucking Blackthorne any day, or Starcraft 1, or the classic Warcaft games you posted, and have a blast and enjoy the graphics and gameplay.
Mostly that happens because they never had short deadlines like most developers do, so they end up working their asses off until the point of almost perfection.
Diablo 3 would absolutely be the exception to that. Rushed imbalanced shit game that could never be fixed from day 1.

Warcraft 2 was the bees knees. Age of Wonders though, still godly.

>>5990779
It has nothing to do with "aging", I had these issues with it when I first played it in the 90s.

>>5996183
I enjoyed campaign but multiplayer was pretty dead compared to starcraft in the late 2000's. I had more expectations I guess, mechanically, from an RTS at this age - we had AOE2 and starcraft, and warcraft 3 failed to deliver complex strategy, and the 'hero' thing was a burden to me. Also there is this personal bias towards graphics, Warcraft 2 has beautiful 2D graphics and darkish artwork from the end of 2D era, and Warcraft 3 has this more-candy leaning artwork early ugly 3D thing - but that is my opinion.

>>5992698
Not to mention even Dune 2 seems less archaic than warcraft 1. And that was december 92 lol. Warcraft 1 was just cheap adn they made effort in 2.

>>5987661
2 is still a blast to play but 1 is garbage. There any mods that add features like right/left clicking or drag to select units?