Warcraft HD

>>3406596
>better
that's the worst spelling of "shit" I have ever seen

Can you select more than 9 units as well?

>>3406606
This, the game is a bit dated

How does it feel that even after playing Warcraft 2 for so many years you will still never be this good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uixW4CoA1Eg

>>3406605
I dunno, someone find expanded FOV useful. Look HoMM III HD(+)

>>3406753
This reminded me how I made New Year promises to git gud in War2.
I failed to accomplish this promise

>>3406614
> the game is a bit dated
welcome to /vr/, bro

>>3406887
>expanded FOV
exactly, it's fucking up gameplay, and that's not even talking about how it pisses on the sprite work, because its proportions don't fit the screen any longer

>>3407348
>and that's not even talking about how it pisses on the sprite work,

sprite work looks better zoomed out though.

>>3407879
It seems the same to me. The difference might be whether you're looking at an old 14" screen or a new 27" one.

>>3407348
I don't think being able to see more fucks up gameplay, you just have to scroll less. Spells and the like should still have a limited range.

>>3409604
scrolling less means your actions get more efficient (as fewer of your actions are dedicated to viewport management), and you get more context (see more of the battlefield and how your units are positioned relative to each other). Both make a game like this easier

>Starcraft
Larger resolutions won't/shouldn't be cheating because there's fog of war.

>Warcraft II
Larger resolutions won't/shouldn't be cheating because there's fog of war.

>Diablo II
Larger resolutions won't/shouldn't be cheating because there's light radius that can help determine AI radius, and projectiles already have limited range.

Why is this always such a topic of issue?

>>3409645
You can disable the fog of war in Warcraft 2.

>>3409661
Not in multiplayer games, IIRC.

File: Inconsistences.gif (350KB, 250x188px)

350KB, 250x188px

>Warcraft HD
>Updated Warcraft II instead of Warcraft

Why?

>>3409834
it's not an update, it's a re-implementation. It's not warcraft 1, because hipsters don't give a shit about it, it's too old and difficult to play

File: 1470414633514.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>3406596
Looks comfy anon

>>3409839

Actually, both War1 and War2 were reimplemented in the same engine:

War1: https://github.com/Wargus/war1gus

War2: http://wargus.sourceforge.net/index.shtml

War1gus doesn't look as polished as Wargus, though.

>>3409894
the only acceptable resolutions are 320x200 for Warcraft and 640x480 for Warcraft 2.

Also, WoW, that shit's terrible. It's literally a random strategy game engine with a bunch of hijacked assets

File: stendhal-1[1].jpg (113KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x335px

>>3406887
> This reminded me how I made New Year promises to git gud in War2.

Really aiming high kiddo.

>>3409897
The Mac version of WC1 runs in 640*480. :^)

>>3409645
>and projectiles already have limited range.
What about Diablo 1 where projectiles have unlimited range?

>>3410165
Blizzard never announced anything for the original Diablo.

>>3406753
I accept my mediocrity.

>>3407205
no, braindead parrot

in early RTS many interface functions that we take for granted from y2000s RTS were still being thought up in the early titles, calling it dated is a spot on description; and there's no fun to be lost by enabling details like viewpoint hotkeys, numbered grouping etc.

if you want the added difficulty of a small FOV in single player just play it windowed or upscaled, if you want some multiplayer fun, play in the biggest map in max resolution and multi training queues enabled.

>inb4 original experience
go get an old 14" CRT then, and a dirty ball mouse

>>3409645
>fog of war.
doesnt help that you can see multiple battle fronts at once

>there's light radius that can help determine AI radius, and projectiles already have limited range.
hum, im 49% sure some atk ranges surpass 800x600 in the 600px direction at least, i remember even shooting blind and checking later that i killed some weaklings for instance at the edge of screen.

UO also has a competitive issue with the resolution, UOSteam users can see much beyond the physical formation of approaching enemies, but names on screen are all 18 steps away anyhow, and aiming isn't dependant on visual click, but this advantage is greater in PVE for instance, pulling bars calmy and deciding vector of approach to safely provoke 2 balrons without instant flamestrike from a thrid one if you come from the wrong side hehe.

but im not a purist complaining about what is cheating or not

>>3407348
>its proportions don't fit the screen any longer
wut?

>>3407348
>how it pisses on the sprite work,
a pixel in a 19" isnt much smaller than in your old CRT was, chances are you played in 320px in a too big screen, just play with 2x scaled sprites and enjoy the greater FOV for less strain on your wrist

File: uo6.jpg (260KB, 1292x754px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1292x754px

>>3413616
I don't play RTS so excuse my uninformed knowledge. I do however play UO casually (I discovered it in 2010) and I know when I boost my resolution, tiles go missing beyond 1280x* anyway so there's that.

>>3413639
>wut?
the sprite work is made with certain proportions in mind. The sidebar fills the whole height of the screen, the viewport shows X tiles in each direction, a big building occupies a certain fraction of the screen. Due to the high resolution all that is gone

>chances are you played in 320px in a too big screen
Warcraft 2 has been 640x480

>enjoy the greater FOV
the "greater FOV" is my problem

File: ishiggydoom.jpg (175KB, 640x803px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 640x803px

>the purists that cant handle any improvements over the original
>that would imply it wasn't perfect to begin with
Why stop there with the improvements? We should mod in animated portraits, a command queue, a placement grid, better macro support OH AND MAKE THE SETTING IN SPACE!

>>3416507
>cant handle any improvements over the original
in a new game? Definitely. WC2 was a step forward from WC, like WC3 was a step forward from WC2. The problem is modding a game to "improve" it, with improvements that fundamentally affect gameplay. They de-balance a game, and I value that balance more than "improvements"

>>3417031

okay, imagine playng Aoe2 conquerors, in a 4k projection in a wall, you're seeing whole big map (4player), imagine 2vs2 in that, everybody can atack and defend at the same time, it almost becomes a new game.

>>3417370
>imagine playng Aoe
No, thanks

>>3406596
I hope they get C&D for this since blizzard literally just announced they're doing warcraft 2 hd

I always hope that blizzard will someday release a patch for both war3 and D2 to improve their resolution. Also with nowadays screens the image is litteraly deformed, they really just need to correct that point, that's all.

>>3409645
For starcraft at least there's a lot of stuff based on resolution.

Selecting units is based around it as well, due to the magic boxes that decide if your units maintain their formation or just bunch up.

It's much more than just a fog of war thing.

macro would probably be easier too

>>3418408
I hope so too.

>>3418408
should be trivial for WC3, total no-go for D2, unless they filter the shit out of it, at which point you may as well run original resolution. As for the "deformed" bit, that's entirely user error. Run the games pillarboxed and it's all fine, there's nothing that needs to be corrected

>>3418225

which will come NEVER!

>>3406614
>This, the game is a bit dated

Fun fact of the day:
Blizzard games don't restrict you on the number of selected units because of technical reasons but because they wanted to prevent rushing and "A-moving" the entire army like in C&C.

>>3418225
>Activision Blizzard
>HD remaster

I'd rather be forced to play Armored Core on a wheel.

>>3417370
lots of RTS games actually do this though, to great effect, allowing you to zoom out however far you need, making minimap either just supplementary if not really obsolete. Warcraft and AoC were made with pixel art that doesn't scale as well as three dimensional objects.

>>3421136
Which is funny, when you think about it, because it ended up making the game all about rushes. Nobody wants to tech up or mass when maneuvering is a pain in the ass. 7 grunt rush made the game boring as hell online.

>>3406605
Go away, lad. It is not shit as it is not 2016 game, it is called retro now.

I really wish we could play full remake of WarCraft 2 with full voice-acting. I saw some custom WC2-like campaigns on WC3 many years ago, but they were not voiced and most of them have WC3-like unit design.

>>3406606
Yep

>>3421195
Didn't work too well for WC2, but it did work flawlessly for Starcraft.

File: screen04.png (575KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1360x768px

>tfw

>>3413819
I'm actually kinda surprised someone didnt just remake the UO client by now. Considering how big free shard scene is. I know someone made a 3d one, but that seemed stupid.

>>3426516
Ultima online 2 never went forward, mainly because of EA trying to fuck up with Lord British, mainly after what they did to Chris roberts and kept WC and Ultima rights as Hostage

i still remember of a old History channel modern machines episode where they talked about how ultima online 2 would be great

>>3406596
Is there a reason why the sidebar is a stretched background instead of just tiling it?

>>3427056
the graphics of the sidebar are not made for tiling, it would look worse

>>3424659
Tell more, please.

>>3409834
cause it's better, especially the music.

>>3406596
Have played it for a week now, constantly freezing when there are too many units doing different things. Also crashes when you load saves with a few hours playtime. So don't bother.

>>3427042
I kinda meant I'm suprised someone hasnt made an open sauce client for UO.

Though EA did try and make another UO2, called Ultima X: Odyssey, looked quite good. and was gonna be released before WoW. I wonder if they coulda got anywhere near the numbers WoW did.