The Warcraft 3 prerelease material thread

[Kyrbi0]

Keep in mind that the abilities were likely removed for a reason. This could be anything from buggy mechanics that could not be fixed to being impossible to balance.

As cool as all the cut prototype stuff seems, someone at Blizzard decided that what we got in release was better and he likely did so with good reason/intent.

This is something I had only considered as of late, and that with reluctance; I've been sure infatuated with doing exactly that (resurrecting Alpha/Beta stuff) for many years now.

 

[KingLichTR]

there are some files/pics that are no longer accessible, any chance re-upload them on a proper website?

 

[Eagle XI]

As cool as all the cut prototype stuff seems, someone at Blizzard decided that what we got in release was better and he likely did so with good reason/intent.

Probably due to hardware available at the time. Their intention was to make an 3d rts that runs smooth whilst having units that doesnt appear like polygon blobs.

 

[Lord_Marrowgrath]

Omg 1999 looks better. Blizzard... I dont understand why

 

[Dr Super Good]

Omg 1999 looks better. Blizzard... I dont understand why

It does? All the models are even lower poly than in WC3 release...

 

[Lord_Marrowgrath]

I mean terrains and buildings more realistic than orginal w3

 

[Dr Super Good]

I mean terrains and buildings more realistic than orginal w3

The terrain is clearly low resolution, I can make normal WC3 terrain look like that by down sampling. Specifically it looks like 32*32 per tile as opposed to release high's 64*64, which explains the alignment and why standard WC3 terrain is misaligned/discontinuous.

The buildings are slightly more detailed but also larger as the game was more RPG like. Many also had primitive shapes to them and lacked detail.

 

[Ghertu]

Graphics definetely got many improvements since 1999 in contradistinction to the interface. Not sure about usability though, probably the old interface was much worse in this case, still I don't beleive it couldn't be improved while keeping it minimalistic. The actual interface makes a player feel like they looking trough some narrow observation slot or an embrasure. I can't even imagine a reason why it can be justified.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Graphics definetely got many improvements since 1999 in contradistinction to the interface. Not sure about usability though, probably the old interface was much worse in this case, still I don't beleive it couldn't be improved while keeping it minimalistic. The actual interface makes a player feel like they looking trough some narrow observation slot or an embrasure. I can't even imagine a reason why it can be justified.

It was a different time. Minimalistic interfaces had a revival in the late 2000's. Until then, the trend was for hardcore games and for putting everything a player might want to know in one screen. Minimalistic interfaces started to become a trend again as graphics improved and games got dumbed down.

 

[Dr Super Good]

It was a different time. Minimalistic interfaces had a revival in the late 2000's. Until then, the trend was for hardcore games and for putting everything a player might want to know in one screen. Minimalistic interfaces started to become a trend again as graphics improved and games got dumbed down.

I would think that putting huge clunky interfaces was an optimization technique as the more of the screen they covered up, the less CPU/GPU time was needed to draw the actual game play.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I would think that putting huge clunky interfaces was an optimization technique as the more of the screen they covered up, the less CPU/GPU time was needed to draw the actual game play.

So that's why minimalistic interfaces were mostly used in games with high graphic fidelity like First Person Shooters at that time...

Sorry for the sarcasm, but that comment made absolutely no sense.


Btw, you can see a revival of that trend in the modern indie game scene. Games with high strategic depth tend to clutter the interface with controls and displays all in one screen to minimize the need for sub-menues.
A great example is FTL or Dwarf Fortress.

Don't get me wrong: I like minimalistic interfaces as much as the next guy, but as soon as I have a game with strategic depth, I want everything presented to me without having to go through endless sub-menus.

 

[oger-lord]

I would think that putting huge clunky interfaces was an optimization technique as the more of the screen they covered up, the less CPU/GPU time was needed to draw the actual game play.

I think it has more to do that the interface was done for a screen resolution of 1024*768

And suddenly the interface looks good and does not waste too much space. (If you want to have good visible icons)

 

[Dr Super Good]

And suddenly the interface looks good and does not waste too much space. (If you want to have good visible icons)

Still does not. The decorative spikes on the UI could have easily been removed to increase visibility a few percent. Top of UI is totally unnecessary and could have been fully transparent (eg SC2). About 5% could be shaved off the top of the lower UI. Top left hero icons could have been made smaller to use up less of the display. Etc.

For comparison here is the SC2 UI.

SC2 UI

Notice how top of screen is open and how short the bottom UI is in comparison. Sure it is 16:9 instead of 4:3 but still.

 

[Alexandru3090]

The 1999 version looks terrible!

 

[MyPad]

Back when the lich's icon was epic...

 

[Deolrin]

Um, actually. I'm quite certain the lich's icon didn't change from that screenshot...