With the Warcraft movie coming out I've been getting interested in the franchise. Is it worth playing Warcraft 1/2 or should I just skip to 3?
>>333358293
I'm a huge fan of the series.
2>3>1
>>333358293
honestly 1 is a waste of time but 2 and 3 are good.
>>333358293
3 is the most complete and playable, 1&2 are just old PC games at this point
1 and 2's stories are no longer relevant
>>333358606
Wot are you on about m8
They are still canon, but slightly retconned. Basically, Warcraft 3 did away with the "Humans good orcs bad" shtick
>>333358293
From someone that started Warcraft with the Warcraft 1 Demo on the old Sound Blaster driver CD, while it was fun back in the day, its pretty hard to play especially after playing Warcraft 2 and 3.
But if you feel like grabbing DosBox, its pretty well worth it.
Just don't expect any hand holding.
>>333358551
>3 is the most playable
If you like that horrible mechanic known as upkeep, and cant stand controlling more than 20 units, yeah, its the most fucking casual of the RTS games.
>>333358293
1 is just complete dog shit after all these years. Zero story in game (it's all in the manual), looks like absolute crap, and plays the exact same.
2 looks bad, but at least it's playable. If you can get over the graphics it might be worth it to play, since there's actually story there, and it's where Warcraft really starts building the lore.of course in true Blizzard fashion though, most of the story in Warcraft 2 and Beyond the Dark Portal have been retconned to shit.
You're better off just reading the plot synopsis or watching some Nobbel videos about the games and playing Warcraft 3
>>333358957
>Zero story in first game
Yeah, anon. You might want to replay it. There's two stories being told, each during their respective campaigns at the briefing screen before each mission.
I'm quite sure the Human's story was canon in the first game.
Two is still fun. First game is Age of Empires 1 tier, aka shit compared to the sequel.
>>333358293
1/2 are really a chore to play at this point, 3 has held up very well. If all you care for is the story, check out some of the novels, they do a better job and account for the retconned stuff. Or even read the wiki stuff. If you just wanna play, go straight for 3.
>>333359290
>read the novels
thats a good joke, son
>>333358293
Ignore the naysayers.
I started with WC2, and going back it's great. Simple, intuitive, the story of Azeroth really starts building up. Key characters are introduced and playable, which set the foundation for the rest of the canon.
Warcraft 3 is amazing, I'd argue objectively the best one. Just a great game anyone should play, even if they don't play 1/2.
Warcraft 1 is rather light on plot, the mechanics are dated, and it's hard to control units efficiently. I tried it, dropped it halfway through. It's rather tedius, but it does have some key locales and characters as well.
Good luck to you, it's a great series no matter shallow a dip you take.
>all this quality posting
Fucking hell, I just wanted to bait people into a shitposting thread about the movie since /tv/ doesn't seem to care
2>3>1
Let's face it, 1 is halfway unplayable at this point.
3 was always kinda meh.
2 is where it's at.
>>333358293
Do you like roads? Like, really, really love them? Then play Warcraft I.
Warcraft II is a solid game that outside of the much-outdated 3D FMVs looks and sounds great.
>>333358293
Play 2 until you get to a level with a sheep in it. Click on the sheep until it explodes, then stop playing because you've just gotten the full Warcraft experience.
>>333358393
this is accurate
>>333358393
Correct. It's even more like 2>>>3>1. 3 is really only good for multiplayer.
>>333358293
1 no.
2 fuck yes.
3 maybe.
>>333362263
>3 is really only good for multiplayer.
wish i had that same opinion
fucking hell, i hate what ASSFAGGOTS did to 3's online.
>>333362436
3s campaign is pretty shit. Can't think of anything more hollow than running around with Thrall or Arthas. 2 is magic.
>>333358293
1 is a bitch to play. The years have not been kind on those controls. It has a certain charme to it, but you'll need quite a bit of determination to bite through it.
2 did away with some of the most crippling limitations (yay for 2 mouse buttons!). It's in every regard a better game than 1. Definitely play through it. Campaign difficulty is very inconsistent, but that's about my only complaint.
3 doesn't need an explanation at this point.
>>333358957
>2 looks bad
For its age, it looks amazing. The clean comicy aesthetic has aged rather well.
>Hey guys, I care about something Blizzard is doing today
I don't understand why. There's a thread for every one of their games on /vg/, but I'd swear they're populated with bots posting nonsensical, three word sentences at each other just to keep the threads alive. There is basically no reason to any longer be interested in Blizzard, its games, or its lore.
>>333362263
>3 is really only good for multiplayer.
Would you say "not anymore"? Didn't Blizzard's patches break balance, especially the latest one?
>all these nostalgia goggles
WC3s campaign is still one of the best of any rts.
WC3/TFT were some of the better RTS games I've played in campaign and online. Much easier to deal with than Starcraft, and that was good for me, because I had about 120-150 APM in Starcraft and could never get better than B- on iCCup, but in War3 I was fucking amazing because the game was so much slower and easier. More tactical, less macro-based, heavy micro and spells.
I won a lot for my team in the W3AL, so yeah.
Anyway, war2 is good, worth playing
War3 is really good if you can get past the graphics
