This is just plain ignorance tbh, if you have such an issue with AI then you shouldn't have played it at all instead of pulling this nonsense.
It's also ignorant for a number of other reasons:
1) I used Replica Studios for some of the voices who pay voice actors to be used to train their voices which imo is ethical in terms of credit and compensation (it's a shame the company shut down imo)
2) For non Replica Studios, I trained it off voices from within Blizzard IPs or Warcraft 3 (The only exception being Orman who was trained off of Star Wars Battlefront II's Anakin Skywalker's voicelines from Youtube which I'd say is probably the only poor choice in terms of AI usage on my part).
3) I paid an artist to create the campaign background image so let's not pretend that I don't support artists here.
4) AI is a tool it can be used unethically or ethically, environmental considerations aside (which I also agree with hence why it's use should be limited) and in this instance for a NON-profit, hobby project for voice acting I think it's acceptable. Feel free to disagree, but don't use it as justification for your performatism.
You should have mentioned it earlier and in the credit for the first point (or I completely missed it like a biscuit head, in this case my bad !). While I won't of course bark again about the numerous AI ethical problems I cannot treat you as a thief specifically there. I would on the other hand give much (!) more credit to someone who used real human voice acting. However I don't promote that process.
Then you stole the works of paid voice actors to train your own AI ; I am curious of the exact tool used for this matter. In general we should never feed any kind of AI especially online.
For the third point I find quite hypocritical to support artists and steal the works of others at the same time ; that also apply to your public image as a creator : how much your own work is based on AI ? What are truly made from your own creative process ? You just shot yourself in your foot. To be clear, maybe to a point of stating the obvious, commissioning an artist is a completely normal process and none of my arguments was about this.
Finally for the fourth point. Being a non-profit hobby project doesn't legitimate the use and promotion of tools of massive theft.
In conclusion I would strongly suggest to ask for any voice actors (like me, don't hesitate to hit me for the next one !) to make your works much more genuine. But enough of this. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
I'd say you're missing out if you play without the music and sound design elements, but it's fair that it's not always possible to play with sound on.
I may give if another round with music enabled if my schedule allows it to be sure.
Having to make choices is part of being a player, it also enhances replayability with players choosing different item specs. Whilst you might want to have your cake and eat it, you cannot. Being selective in which items to take is all part of that player agency.
I do not completely understand yet your intent there. This campaign has RPG inspired elements which I cannot blame, but they happen sometimes on timed missions and this makes the user experience more chaotic on the very first run. I agree on the replayability aspect which eluded me before (I can concede that). Still I fail to put a finger on the exact issue there. On a longer campaign (or multiple linked campaigns) that would be less of a problem. You throw the player amid many custom items used on some missions. Furthermore your heroes are strength based so their mana cannot fully allow the usage of spell based items. My current hypothesis is you heavily inspired yourself from WoW (o rly flame ?) on the item/shop system, but it doesn't fit the scale of Warcraft 3. I haven't tested your other campaigns yet so having a zone with many item shops could be a recurring element, but I'm getting lost in my thoughts. On summary the "greedy" kind of player may get punished a bit more on his first runs instead of being rewarded.
You have two heroes for almost every mission, it does not take that long to traverse most of the missions, you can check their map size against the blizzard campaign maps and you'll see they're roughly comparable with mine only being slightly larger.
Size matters indeed (dirty joke aside), but rhythm too. If you ask the player to be everywhere all at once on many creep camps and secondary targets this transforms into a hurried hassle. There's numerous paths and sometimes multiple different enemy bases attacking you. The time you go back to your base and defeat them another base has the time to prepare and launch another. I found the portal idea neat to alleviate that on the battleship and last mission. On the control point mission the map would greatly benefit from being a bit smaller since you don't have speed boosts nor effective use of scrolls (the time you build a town hall the enemy is there). My suggestion is to make the control points able to be teleport points so you can at least use scrolls to quickly defend (at the price of a scroll, which is a good strategical implication with the capture of the goldmine point). On the other hand I may have instinctively chosen the most unoptimal route taken so that could have biased me a lot.
I don't know what you mean by "at your level". I think the campaign is still served better with the voice acting than without, and yes whilst it's not perfect I don't find it "silly" or immersion breaking for the vast majority of instances.
By this I meant I'm judging you like if you are a high-end hobbyist level campaign maker. AI voice cannot have the depth of an actor, even an amateur one. It's like using synthetic voice, it doesn't fit the mostly serious narrative.
Are you new to Warcraft 3? Are you new to seeing Warcraft 3 models? I think this is a little silly; I'm sorry it broke your immersion but I'd say the models in general fit in next to any classic/vanilla Wc3 model.
I disagree on the animations. The hero models deserved to have much more juice and impact for that level of quality. I would definitely showed you my point of view by editing the animations, alas that would be for much later once I learn the tools properly. In the meantime I may do some kind of animation if I don't get distracted.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, the dialogues are timed to the length of the voiced lines. IF you mean delays between transitions then I disagree, you need to show the player what the character is referring to first before they start talking. Pauses between lines is perfectly acceptable in an RTS cinematic. AFAIK there is no 3-5 second delay between each sentence, I've asked others and they don't seem to share this idea or haven't noticed. I'm happy to adjust timings if given specific examples.
If you give me permission, I would take one mission and edit the cinematic timings and send you in private. If my vision is in practice not better I would concede that too.
I'm sensing a real sense of impatience on your end, if you're unable to take a small amount of time to play a mission or Warcraft 3's gameplay then I'm afraid this seems like an issue on your end. During testing I took a note of the time lengths to complete each mission and asked testers how long certain missions took in order to ensure they weren't too long or too short.
There's a difference between having a long mission due to the multiple layers of obstacles and having a long mission because of a trivial step being too long. Raising a full 5 armor fortified base with 1-1 footies and rifles is very long, and in that second mission you get 2 of them (more like 1.66 but you see the point). If siege units are out of the question, at least replace razing the base by destroying the main building, and justify this in the narrative as "their command structure is now destroyed, they are fleeing in disarray !" for example. Or destroying enough buildings to make them retreat.
So how do I fix an issue with the built-in blizzard AI?
I don't know either. I might have rambled like a old man again.
Power Creep? You played on normal, if its so easy for you then play on hard. No offence, but this is a bit of a silly point to make such a big deal over when you played on normal. Yeah your units get more upgrades that make them strong, but there's also a bunch of new enemies who have strong abilities too. If a horse unit having 270 movement speed is that big of an issue for you then no offence but I think you need to re-assess your priorities and perspective.
That is by definition a power creep, or an inflation of stats. You are stronger and the enemy is stronger. The altered units are fine enough by my standards (unless another nuts like me wall texts the both of us) ; however the base units got stronger and their price doesn't change. This is shaky grounds as a fellow designer to another. Are the new enemies higher scaled or artificially stronger ? Furthermore the bonii you get add a serious power spike to your units instead of making them more rounded. Again I might do a second run on hard mode and see if my points clearly stand or not.
For the foot horseman it is a point to polish like another. If you truly want to have a high quality campaign details like them should be taken care of.
What do you mean? The Trolls are in the Arathi Highlands on the other side of the wall to the Undead.
I find it strange you meet both the undead and the trolls on the same missions. That is not explicit enough and confused me.
So many options for you to fill in yourself here, maybe they want to experiment on them? Maybe they want to corrupt them, who knows? Why does this need explaining?
The diegesis should be reinforced there, we don't have much interaction about it. A simple "Fools ! Do not take away our new fresh toys !" quote should have sufficed, and then one of your hero says "If they do indeed keep their prisoners alive, I cannot imagine what gruesome fate awaits our fellow armsmen". Imagination should work on a coherent base. You can't just lay something randomly and expect the player to assemble the puzzle. Not all players are accustomed to the overextended WoW lore. Furthermore that improvement would trivialy fix that plothole.
Why did Kel'thuzad and the Lich King allow one of their minions to lead an army to spread more undeath and conquer more of Azeroth? Are you serious? Also at this point it's the Dreadlords who control the Scourge.
A frontal assault is risky against the southern and resourceful kingdoms of the south. Dreadlords should have first infiltrated their ranks and destroyed them from the inside. Their priority is the destruction of the world tree so they would not spread their line thin while most of their forces are on the other side of the world (your characters also mentioned this fact in the narrative). Lordearon fell after transforming most of it into the undead. Then why the dreadlords would attack them in the first place ? That doesn't make sense in a strategical point of view. Most players won't see that but I hoped it had some kind of justification behind it, and it could have several other of them.
You're familiar with attacking from multiple angles right? The whole idea is that the Undead can attack from 3 fronts. Again, you're smart enough to know this isn't an issue.
Just make a bridgehead elsewhere with their necropoli instead of throwing them into the fortified positions, spread blight and generate corpses. When the humans arrive to defend start another bridgehead elsewhere etc. Keep them busy in their fortified position thinking undead would breach there. Use infiltrators to sabotage the anti-air abilities to let the necropoli pass. Use airforce to strike supply nodes and routes. Unless the undead and dreadlords absolutely suck at strategy ; but that is not specified in the narrative.
Same reason Warfield only sends one Gorgon at a time. You only send as much as you need to, there's a bunch of reasons why but again this is a silly point that I don't think I need to answer in my campaign or here; you're perfectly capable of coming up with whatever reason you wish.
What are the reasons then ? Do they make any effort on attacking the trebuchets directly ? No character mentions the Necropoli can only be sent one by one, and nothing about how defended are the Trebuchets. Again it's not up to the player to find their own reason. You bring something in the middle of the narration and that hurts the comprehension. In this case to be put very bluntly you don't even care which questions a player would ask about the story elements ; you had the right tools in the hand but the execution left me hungry for more justifications. The undead looks very dumb, not the ruthless sly manipulators we got on other campaigns. This storytelling part should definitely deserve to be reworked even if I don't have much to say about the gameplay.
Come on man, this is just getting ridiculous. Why do the High Elves use ballista? Why does Stormwind use Ballista or Catapults? Why do they use bows and arrows instead of guns? Why is this an issue here when you know it's not an issue in broader lore or context of Warcraft.
Like I said before, people might experience the campaign as an almost standalone piece. On a mission you had access to siege tanks and mortars - dwarven technology. It could have been altered by using the trebuchet as a support anti-ground fire, and having the dwarves coming with heavy gunpowder artillery pieces to support the anti-air defense (or maybe call their flying machines we saw in the cinematic !). Another way would be to specify in the narrative that the necropoli fly low to support the ground forces, and they underestimate the anti-air abilities of the enemy. Or just say after destroying the necropoli the living gained experience on how to destroy them, and created specific projectiles to bring them down with the help of dwarves. Trebuchets could also be used to fire in a salvo to bring them down ; however that idea brings other plotholes... In any case we had many ways to consolidate that aspect.
In the real world the bow and arrow was used for many, many years after gunpower and the arquebus were introduced into Europe, because they had pros and cons to them. These aren't plot holes, these are you deciding to make an issue where there is none.
You are maybe referring to the pike and shot era (
great video by Alternate History Hub), or earlier than that. Firearms were not advanced enough to be reliably used on the battlefield, and they were mostly small to medium sized. In the Warcraft lore they are much more reliable, refined and spread ; benefiting from magic and enchantments. We even have repeating weapons and modern explosive shells. I think I understand your point but comparing it to real world history is not a good reference. I will stop there since it looks like a rabbit hole in itself, and going outside the subject of this topic.
... because it was? Who would pick it up? Arthas? He clearly didn't care about the crown, since he does leave it.
You nailed the cinematic effect on that, I do not point this at all. However anyone could have sneaked through the chaos and stole the crown. Or anyone with some kind of greed. If a big goofball like Orman managed to get through all of it, many could too. Like an onion if we seek to justify it, it reveals another layer of plothole. It's a crown, a very important cultural symbol, not a simple artifact or jewelry. Some nuts necromancer or something could have picked it and gloated "uhuh am da king of loldearon" before tossing it elsewhere after his joke (or attempt of spite).
Again nobody in the Undead/Demon side cares about it for legitimacy, and none of the living were able to reach it. You do understand you just played an entire mission showing the effort of Orman and his party to get it?
And how would they be sure the crown would be still there and not stolen nor broken ? What were their sources ? I don't understand.
Probably in places where some equally traumatic event has occurred, did you even watch the cinematic or read the dialogue?
Following your logic, being killed by frostmourne would be counted as traumatic ; thus much more spirits could exist like these anywhere.
This whole paragraph is some of the most insulting, condescending and pretentious nonsense I've ever read.
Where is the pretention on complimenting your skills and praising the potential of your campaign ? I am saddened about the AI slope (slop ?) you are taking and hoped you could reconsider its use ; from a creator to another. In your shoes I would be glad to have my creative process challenged and my blind spots covered (like you did with your extensive response). I saw discrepancy between the intent and the output ; hence my numerous design concerns so you would have another point of view. All of that to show how far your story could be experienced, or at least points which could improve it further.
If I truly wanted to insult or being condescending, I would completely hurt myself and lie to you by saying something like
"Your campaign is a teenager ego trip made in 2011 when you first discovered the World Editor" or
"I can do better WoW stuff than your AI prompt" or
"You are trash, your campaign is trash" or even
"Return fornicate the boiled arse of thou mother while I printeth yet another textual castle of glorious opinions". See the difference ? Never I had the intent to insult you in any way. I saw good and bad points, I analyze them, I ask precisions, I propose suggestions to reinforce your intent, all of that sometimes with a pinch of humor and bulldozer (I'm working on it). I just think about the creation as itself. About AI it was a required passage as I am a full pledged defender of artists and authors (and not just about AI ; but that's another story).
I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but I think it is only befitting the attitude and language you have shown towards me.
Do not ever be sorry of being harsh to be. If I missed anything obvious I don't mind people lecturing me as I could then learn something new.
While we have obvious disagreements on design and technology choices I do not find ill intent from you.
Then, completely unrelated to above.
Found the 80 year old guy that hates usage of AI, when its only voices, which even though they arent great since its AI, and lack some emotion and depth, its still better than unit sitting silent, voices make them more alive and all newer campaigns I played have them, so either accept that nowadays the worlds is going torwards AI usage, or just stop using the internet instead of giving 1 star based on some dumb personal hate for a tool..
Oh stop it, I'm not that young. Back in my days we blamed newspaper and novels, but at least they do not work on stealing millions of artists every single day. Next time I'll complain about AI directly in your mailbox by hand-writen quill ink letter. Damn those zoomers and their inter net !
Also the other points are plain cringe to read, its like I am reading a review for a Steam game and not a Custom Campaign for Warcraft 3.
Because... I do ? Game reviews are game reviews no matter the platform ; with technical context taken in account of course.
o me this sounded like some pretentious guy that thinks he is some high class game critique, Pirate Software "Game Dev" style kinda guy.
Because... I am a gamedev ? Am I not allowed to review a Warcraft 3 map/campaign with the broader vision of a gamedev ? I do not advance myself as a senior ; but from my experience I saw elements deserving to be reinforced and then shared them.