Greetings fellow GOGers,

the Warlords Battlecry series has been on my wishlist for a long time now, but almost as long as they've been on there, I've had this nagging question: which game to get?

Can someone give me a basic rundown of the differences between the three games? Is there a significant difference between the three to warrant getting them all?

Graphically I can see they are all almost identical. Gameplay-wise my sense is that WBC1 is a simple game with a standard "Warcraft-esque" linear campaign, whereas (from reading wikipedia) WBC2 and 3 have non-linear campaigns?

Is that correct? Can anyone elaborate on the differences?

I'd appreciate the help!

Thanks in advance,

BoP

The first game has a quite linear campaign, there is one choice you have to make about whether to follow the path of darkness or not. I'd recommend if you do, then do the path of darkness first, it makes the other path make more sense in my opinion. However it's a good story, and the game generally is very good. There's a nice variety of hero development options, which is where the game really distinguished itself.

The second game has not really got any campaign. The "Campaign" you can play is just a set of maps you need to beat, there is not even an attempt at a story. However the second is in my opinion the best when it comes to hero development, and units. There are new races, some additional units in each race, and the introduction of Titans. Most importantly, they let you really carefully fine tune your hero. Gameplay wise I found it the most enjoyable.

The third game re-introduces a story, but it's not as good in my opinion as it's no longer an in-game story so much as a set of cutscene(ish) introductions to the map you're about to play. While you get some more choices, there aren't really any characters like the first game had. They also reduced the hero level up options. I don't know if this was because there were balancing issues with the way it was done in the previous game, but it makes it feel much less involved. However being the third game, there are yet more races, more units, and more interface improvements (health potions for one thing really change the balance of a battle for your hero). Unsurprisingly it's the most modern, but I couldn't really get into it like the other two.

So in answer - play all three, in order.

Thanks so much for the thorough and insightful response. It looks like you are right and I should just get all three. :)

I would go for WBC3. Yeah, campaign is kinda sucky, ambushes are boring, map in WBC2 was better (at least for me). but there is so many new races, classes, items and etc added in WBC3 that I have to put it in #1. (I didn't play first game tho, so can't say anything about it.)

As a recommendation to anyone reading this post, WBCII is by far the best in the series for hardcore gamers. Story isn't as deep as first, not as many races as third but more than first. Leveling and appearance are what did it for me. In 3, you level during battles, and it's simplified, versus only after battles in 1 and 2. Also 1 and two let you micromanage stats, so you can get really involved with a character. And there's the Archmage, who had access to every spell in 2 but not 3.