It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
hedwards: I never got into Warcraft 1, I got it as part of the battle chest and unfortunately, the graphics were so poor that you could see virtually none of what was going on at the time. WC 2 was a huge improvement just because you could see enough of the battlefield to make it engaging.

Kind of sad that Blizzard never really managed to surpass it. I thought I liked SC, but playing it more recently, the game is pretty dull.
avatar
ZFR: I actually played a few levels of Warcraft before buying Battlechest and playing all. The graphics didn't bother me as much as the 4 unit selection and lack of right-click shortcuts. But it's surprising what one gets used to. After first few levels I got really proficient in it. With keyboard shortcuts and all.
I should probably give it a go. It just suffers a bit the same way that games often do when there's a good sequel. It can be a bit hard to give it a fair assessment when things get fixed in sequels. OTOH, WC2 is even better considering what WC3 was.
avatar
ZFR: I actually played a few levels of Warcraft before buying Battlechest and playing all. The graphics didn't bother me as much as the 4 unit selection and lack of right-click shortcuts. But it's surprising what one gets used to. After first few levels I got really proficient in it. With keyboard shortcuts and all.
avatar
hedwards: I should probably give it a go. It just suffers a bit the same way that games often do when there's a good sequel. It can be a bit hard to give it a fair assessment when things get fixed in sequels. OTOH, WC2 is even better considering what WC3 was.
I just realized I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant I actually played a few levels of Warcraft 2 before buying Battlechest and playing all.

And yes, do give Warcraft 1 a try. I liked it.