Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

k2man · Jul 3, 2002, 02:26 AM

Got it at Target this afternoon (Tuesday). My early impressions:

1) Beautiful world, just stunning.
2) Runs well on my Ti 800. Scrolling is occassionally a tinsy bit choppy, but only a bit. Otherwise, no slow downs in the early levels, and this is with all the graphics options turned on.
3) I'm in the second campaign, but so far, play is a little uninspiring. The missions just haven't grabbed me yet, and the story is rather standard. Also, there are a lot of cut-scenes in between missions, with some hokey dialogue. I'm tired of them already.
4) I have a bad feeling that these Heroes make gameplay a lot different than in WC II (ie, not as fun). You tend to worry about what they're doing, or what's happening to them, rather than thinking about **ALL** of your pieces.
5) I need to see if you can scale back your view of the playing field, so you can see more terrain and units. Right now, things feel pretty cramped and it's bugging me.

G4Cube · Jul 3, 2002, 08:31 AM

one question, the mac version that you bought is 1.00???

thanks

cubix.-

Aragorn · Jul 3, 2002, 09:06 AM

Supposedly if you have a scroll wheel then you can zoom in and out with it.

I'mDaMac · Jul 3, 2002, 09:23 AM

What did you pay for Warcraft 3 at Target? Who has the best deal? $59 is a bit steep; I hope Blizzard doesn't start a trend in pricing for games.

schwa · Jul 3, 2002, 09:26 AM

Is it being sold on a hybrid CD, or do I need to track down a Mac-specific version?

Scotttheking · Jul 3, 2002, 10:39 AM

hybrid

OJ · Jul 3, 2002, 10:56 AM

Anyone playing War3 on an iBook 600 (2001 or earlier)? I read someone posted on maccentral that he was able to play the game fine on his iBook 500 with options turned down etc. Hopefully that's good news for us pre-2002 iBook owners!

k2man · Jul 3, 2002, 11:34 AM

It's version 1.00 and I paid $59 for it. And yes, it's a hybrid CD (so send in your warranty card so they know you're using it as a Mac player).

More thoughts:
I played some custom maps last night, and again, didn't have as much fun as i did playing WC II. For starters, the playfield definitely needs to offer a wider view (you can lower/raise the angle at which you look at the playfield, but you can't seem to scale it back to see more of the world at once), and once a lot of fighting starts, it's hard to tell what's going on, because even the highest view is set at an angle, and so units sort of overlap each other. It's even hard to see your mouse cursor, which is frustrating as you try to select units or survey their heath.

And also, once heavy fighting starts, my Ti 800 DOES indeed slow down and get choppy, making scrolling around the battlefield a bit disorienting (a wider view of the world would help). Maybe I'll turn off some options...

I'm hoping I'll just get used to all this...

juanvaldes · Jul 3, 2002, 11:43 AM

okay, Min system specs are 400 G3, 128 RAM, 16 meg Video Card.
The recommended system is 600Mhz, 256 RAM, 32 meg Video Card.

I have dual 450 G4 (only single to the game though), too much ram (960) and 16 meg Rage 128 Pro, and with textures and all up it runs pretty well. I have yet to crank up the rez though.

Is anyone else having some odd looking refresh problems? For instance some letters (not even all in a single sentence) blink every second or two, very odd...almost like my refresh is too low...

OS 10.1.5

juanvaldes · Jul 3, 2002, 11:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by k2man:
It's version 1.00 and I paid $59 for it. And yes, it's a hybrid CD (so send in your warranty card so they know you're using it as a Mac player).
<hr /></blockquote>Very good point, but....where is the warranty card?

goMac · Jul 3, 2002, 04:54 PM

Any speed difference in X vs. 9?

I have a G3 B/W 400. :crosses fingers:

clow · Jul 3, 2002, 06:49 PM

I got a copy of WC3 in OZ yesterday. It works fine on my iBook 700 (16mb Vram).
Had the settings on 800x600 32bit. All other options on medium.
Plays perfectly without problems or being too choppy.

So I assume it'll work fine on the 8mb Rage cards on the pre-02 iBooks.

I'm impressed by the graphics of it.

Chris

Adam Betts · Jul 3, 2002, 07:28 PM

So.. how is battle.net? Lagging on 56k so far?

juanvaldes · Jul 3, 2002, 07:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
So.. how is battle.net? Lagging on 56k so far?<hr /></blockquote>I can't say much, as I have DSL but it is supposed to work down to 28.8 like all of their other games.

11011001 · Jul 3, 2002, 08:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
So.. how is battle.net? Lagging on 56k so far?<hr /></blockquote>I can't say much, as I have DSL but it is supposed to work down to 28.8 like all of their other games.<hr /></blockquote>Of course anyone with that kind of connection will get booted.

Sigh. I don't like booting people in SC, but sometimes it is just nice to play a game at real speeds... you know what I mean?

Sigh. DSL and Cable are not that expensive anymore... I am suprised not more people have it. Well, actually all of the people I know as friends have it.. er.. I was the last.

<bows his head in embarassment and leaves the thread>

Adam Betts · Jul 3, 2002, 10:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 11011001:
Of course anyone with that kind of connection will get booted.

Sigh. I don't like booting people in SC, but sometimes it is just nice to play a game at real speeds... you know what I mean?

Sigh. DSL and Cable are not that expensive anymore... I am suprised not more people have it. Well, actually all of the people I know as friends have it.. er.. I was the last.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I'm at home for vacation and there's only AOL around here. If there are fast connection option, I'll use it for sure.

Don't forget that you have to live close to any of the big company to get fast connection

Some people said that the campaign of WC III is pretty too short. Is it true?

Carl Norum · Jul 4, 2002, 09:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OJ:
Anyone playing War3 on an iBook 600 (2001 or earlier)? I read someone posted on maccentral that he was able to play the game fine on his iBook 500 with options turned down etc. Hopefully that's good news for us pre-2002 iBook owners!<hr /></blockquote>I played a couple levels on my iBook 600 (OC'd from 500) and it works okay. It might get pretty bad at later stages with more characters on screen.

-- Carl

k2man · Jul 4, 2002, 01:42 PM

I haven't finished the second and apparently last campaign....just got a bit tired of the simple nature of the missions, and wanted to jump into full blown combat, so I've been playing custom games for the last day or so. Will probably go back to the campaign soon...

Re performance on a Ti 800. I played the Garden of War map with 4 computer opponents last night, and definitely had major choppiness anytime there were more than a handful of units on screen. It was to the point where I'd try to scroll the screen by just a tiny bit, and end up passing by the terrain/units I was looking for because of the low frame rate. That was disappointing.

On Battle.net, I played a game on a smaller map with 3 live opponents, and things went better in terms of performance. It was definitely playable, so maybe managing the AI for computer players is what makes the game begin to choke....

Re gameplay: still haven't had a really fun game, but I'm going to focus on working with my heroes, and see if that helps.

Sawtooth2000 · Jul 4, 2002, 04:28 PM

How will W.C. III run on a Titanium 400 MHz, 384 MB RAM, 8 MB video?

Thanks
-'tooth

meducus · Jul 4, 2002, 05:05 PM

I had to share this.

In the WC III manual there is seperate PC and Mac trouble shooting guides (pages 5-6).

Notice that the PC guide starts with "If your computer hard locks without an error message, reboots during game play, will not start.....". No such warning in the Mac section, he he he (Stupid Windoze users).

By the way WC III is running fine on my ibook 700 (384mb ram), at 800 x 600.

goMac · Jul 4, 2002, 08:52 PM

Playing Battle.net on 56k right now. No one even knows.

godzookie2k · Jul 4, 2002, 10:58 PM

Warcraft 3, finally, a REALLY good reason to upgrade that video card...

Adam Betts · Jul 5, 2002, 02:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by goMac:
Playing Battle.net on 56k right now. No one even knows.

<hr /></blockquote>Not even god!?! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Seriously, that's a great news to hear! I'm glad that they didn't dump us 56kers just like RtCW, etc did.

Mac Guru · Jul 5, 2002, 08:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I had to share this.
In the WC III manual there is seperate PC and Mac trouble shooting guides (pages 5-6).
Notice that the PC guide starts with "If your computer hard locks without an error message, reboots during game play, will not start.....". No such warning in the Mac section, he he he (Stupid Windoze users). <hr /></blockquote>I've run into that a lot, Windows Troubleshooting section (If you're using a Mac, turn to page 12 to continue the installation)

Or the fun one, when installation instructions for PC are like reading a bible and the Mac ones are Inster Disk, run the install app.

LOL

Mac Guru

Jul 5, 2002, 05:59 PM

I have an 800iMac with a DDR GeForce 2MX and with everything at max in 1024 by 768 and there is no slowdown whatsoever, even when the screen is swarming with men! I DO get slowdown if I zoom the camera in though. I'm using OS 9.
Maybe it's because your using ATI cards?

elvisripley · Jul 5, 2002, 07:50 PM

WC3 uses both processors on a dual system. Someone about half way said that only one worked. Nope, they both do.

MacGorilla · Jul 5, 2002, 10:07 PM

I have played W III extensively. I have finished the human campaign (which is the first of four). The "hero" (if you call him that) is a teenager with an attitude problem named Arthas.

The gameplay is solid, but uninspired. I don't think combing RTS and roleplaying works as well as Blizzard would hope. The roleplaying consists of keeping your hero alive through fairly linear missions. I agree with a previous posting: it's distracting. Your hero needs more "role" in the playing. In the middle of a mass battle, you have to keep an eye on the hero. He's tough but he spends a lot of time healing his units.

The graphics are smooth and well done The view can be changed but it's still a pain.

Overall, the give the game an "A-" for effort but overall it's still head and shoulders above anything else.

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 06:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by elvisripley:
WC3 uses both processors on a dual system. Someone about half way said that only one worked. Nope, they both do.<hr /></blockquote>Are you saying that Warcraft 3 is MP aware? Can you please post a screenshot showing the double-bar'd CPU monitor next to Warcraft 3 running in windowed mode?

iboy · Jul 7, 2002, 10:15 AM

My personal impression on Warcraft III

First of all I have an Ti 667 (Rev.b) with an Radeon 16MB graphiccard and 512MB RAM. I read in some forums around the world that they can even play that game on an 600Mhz iBook with "acceptable" speed... I cannot belive that!!!

I reduced all the options to the poor minimum and even then it doesn't run well. I'm really disappointed!!!

Any other disappointed gamers around here?

bye

MacGorilla · Jul 7, 2002, 11:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by elvisripley:
WC3 uses both processors on a dual system. Someone about half way said that only one worked. Nope, they both do.<hr /></blockquote>Are you saying that Warcraft 3 is MP aware? Can you please post a screenshot showing the double-bar'd CPU monitor next to Warcraft 3 running in windowed mode?<hr /></blockquote>How do you run warcraft in windowed mode?

godzookie2k · Jul 7, 2002, 11:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Are you saying that Warcraft 3 is MP aware? Can you please post a screenshot showing the double-bar'd CPU monitor next to Warcraft 3 running in windowed mode?<hr /></blockquote>Actually, any carbonized/cocoaized program running in X is mp aware.

and windowed mode is done by starting up WC and holding option or by doing a command -m anytime during the game or while its running.

Scotttheking · Jul 7, 2002, 11:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by godzookie2k:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Are you saying that Warcraft 3 is MP aware? Can you please post a screenshot showing the double-bar'd CPU monitor next to Warcraft 3 running in windowed mode?<hr /></blockquote>Actually, any carbonized/cocoaized program running in X is mp aware.

and windowed mode is done by starting up WC and holding option or by doing a command -m anytime during the game or while its running.<hr /></blockquote>For the last time, the app still has to be written to use both procs. OSX can put the app on either proc, but unless the app is coded to use both, it won't.

BTW, it runs darn slow on my B&W G3 400 with 16MB rage 128 and 640MB ram.
I'm going to go steal the sis's imac 800 with 512MB ram later today

Vash · Jul 7, 2002, 02:16 PM

Warcraft III is a great game, but I like to wach some of my warriors fight in the lower view. Even with my Dual 1ghz G4 and Geforce 4 Ti it lags pretty bad when I angle the view more. Any reasons why it would do this?

MacGorilla to play in windowed mode press "command + M"

[ 07-07-2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Vash ]

Jeff Binder · Jul 7, 2002, 08:09 PM

At the lower angle, you can see farther off into the distance, so there's more stuff for the game to draw.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 7, 2002, 09:09 PM

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/dewey2002/WC3.jpg" target="_blank">Image Of Windowed WC3...</a>

Apple + M (This will place everything into a window... VERY cool if you are just learning, and have other "work" to be doing...

Brad Oliver · Jul 7, 2002, 11:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scotttheking:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by godzookie2k:
Actually, any carbonized/cocoaized program running in X is mp aware.<hr /></blockquote>For the last time, the app still has to be written to use both procs. OSX can put the app on either proc, but unless the app is coded to use both, it won't.<hr /></blockquote>That's not entirely true. In OSX, apps spawn off MP threads in circumstances where they would not under 9, outside of the apps immediate control. In this way, apps gain a small bit of an advantage when run on an MP Mac. Aside from this, an app really does need to be written to be MP-thread-savvy to gain a sizable performance boost.

Brad

k2man · Jul 8, 2002, 02:02 AM

Performance is really strange, at least under OS X (haven't tried it in OS 9...there's no way I'm going to boot into 9 just for a game).

Anyway, I had settled into playing 800x600x16 with lots of the settings on either medium or low (animation, particles, etc.). And things were okay, but still occassionally choppy. Then, just to see how the game looked in all its splendor, I cranked every setting (res, etc.) to its highest point, and played the same scenario I had just played, and...there wasn't an appreciable difference! Things seemed maybe about 5-10% slower, but it wasn't enough to bother me,

Then I played a similar scenario a day later, and the machine crawled. SO I went back to my earlier anemic settings (800x600, etc.), and it was still sluggish.

Strange...

dragonbong · Jul 8, 2002, 05:06 AM

Why are there so many people bitching and moaning about wc3 not working on their ti or ibooks w/o choppiness. Of course its going to look like crap maxing at 16mbvram on ibooks and if your lucky you got a 32 mobility radeon in the new Ti that should at least let you play at a normal speed. The laptops aren't really built for gaming.

Campaign, mode is just ok, but there's nothing like a 5 on 5 team battle on Divide and Conquer. Just crazy.

MacGorilla · Jul 8, 2002, 09:40 AM

I have now finished 1/2 of the game. I swear the last chapter in the Undead campaign is unwinnable. Don't ask me how I did it, I don't know.

My opinion of the game has changed a bit. While game play is solid and the graphics really good, I must say the game is linear and uninspired. I play the game and think "The fuss was all about this??". Oh well, onto the Orcs...

mitchell_pgh · Jul 8, 2002, 09:51 AM

I'm with MacGorilla on this one... They seem so boring, and easy to trick at times... I am still having issues with the resolution. I hope that a two button mouse and a scrole wheele help. The zoom is CRAZY tight... I can't even collect all of my troops at times...

mac freak · Jul 8, 2002, 11:43 AM

To reiterate a previous question:

I have a DP450 -- should I play under 9.2.2 or 10.1.5?
I'm going to buy the game tonight.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 8, 2002, 11:48 AM

I have been using 10.1.5, and it seems rather smooth... Battle.net games work well...

Use 9.2 if that's what you run, but if your system can run WC3 in X, do it...

Carl Norum · Jul 8, 2002, 11:53 AM

I don't have OS 9 on my iBook, so I can't comment about that situation, but on my iMac 800, there is what seems to be (hand-wavingly) a 10 fps difference between OS 9 and X. I run the game at 1024x768x32 with all video options at high. I turn off 3D positional audio, because I don't care anyway, but I don't know if that really makes any difference. We're not talking about the 10 fps difference between 100 and 110 frames either - more like 15 to 25.... a big big deal, if you get what I mean.

The installation will work in either OS 9 or X, and the game will run from the same install in both as well.

TikTokk · Jul 9, 2002, 07:59 AM

B&W G3 400 rev1
512 Meg Ram
Stock 16 Meg video card

Runs fine in OSX at 800x600 16 with all settings at low

CIA · Jul 9, 2002, 01:30 PM

Dare I ask, I have a (rev A) Beige G3 with 500Mhz upgrade, ATI XclaimVR 128 (16Megs of Vram), & 352 megs of ram. Think it's worth a shot?

TikTokk · Jul 9, 2002, 03:02 PM

I'd say go for it.

benh57 · Jul 11, 2002, 04:22 PM

Heres a good screenshot of the CPU usage (sshed into my OSX mac from my PB1400): <img src="http://homepage.mac.com/bhines/war3.jpg" alt=" - " />
You can see that it isn't really "MP Aware", it is at least slightly threaded so it is able to get up to 108-111%. If it were MP-Aware like Giants is, it would be around 195% usage.

Also note that even though i have all those other apps running, performance is fine. Thank OS X for that.

(oh, and the dual 800)

::maroma:: · Jul 11, 2002, 04:37 PM

I think the scenerios are OK. I also think that this game is mainly a multi-player game. Yes, the solo missions are a big part, but I don't think it was the main focus. After all, once you finish the scenerios, you're left with years of multi play. Therefore, the majority of your time spent with this game is in multi-player mode.

At least, that's my thoughts on why the solo missions seem a little lacking.

As for performance, this is a hefty game. Nowhere near as light as Warcraft 2 or Starcraft is. Warcraft 3 runs GREAT in OS 9 for me. It lags quite a bit in X. Jaguar is supposed to help this, if not fix it all together. So, people who are freaking out about performance, you're either going to have to play in OS 9, or have some patience and wait for 10.2. And if it's still sluggish on your machine, then it's YOUR MACHINE/VID CARD! NOT the game. Get a new(er) machine and/or vid card, or deal with what you got.

starman · Jul 14, 2002, 08:30 PM

Althought I'm not interested in this game myself, my friend picked up the Collector's Edition last night. VERY NICE box. Comes with a Book "The Art or Warcraft III", 4 lithos, a soundtrack CD, and an ASS-KICKING DVD which has the cutscenes in 16x9, Dolby Digital 5.1, trailers for the game, trailers for OTHER games, and commentaries from the production crew.

VERY impressive.

Mike

MacGorilla · Jul 14, 2002, 08:38 PM

I agree with the previous poster that this game with shine in multiplayer. I am almost done with WarCraft now and must say the scenarios are a bit on the lame side.