Warcraft 2.5 - ACT 1 - Hillsbrad
the first Human mission of Warcraft 2 re-imagined in Warcraft 3
[ THE GOODS ]
First, a link to download the map:
https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/warcraft-2-5-human-campaign.352688/
Should I remake more of the original missions – and the second one is already in the making and largely done – or produce anything else in the editor, it will all be uploaded to the Hive Workshop as well, using the same thread.
[ THE REASONS ]
Once upon a time, a major schism occurred in the fledgling Warcraft franchise.
The first two games were pureblooded oldschool RTS, and while the original was awfully clunky and thus difficult to play and enjoy properly, the sequel can only be described as one of the most quintessential examples of the genre. It's not story driven or pretentious in any way, it's not blending genres or trying to do anything fancy... no, it's a strict RTS. If you strip away mission briefings and cinematics, there is only pure gameplay and action.
You command units and build bases. That's it. Your meat and potatoes of Warcraft. The gravy – the only thing to spice things up and make them unique – are the themes, aesthetics, soundtrack, voice acting, and other details. That's quite literally what makes it Warcraft. Not lore, characters and overarching story, no... it's things like the voice lines and art style. The second installment had nothing more to offer. Or at least not much more than that.
And then came the third, which changed everything about Warcraft. Suddenly the campaign was a Role-Playing Strategy, rather than a Real-Time Strategy, and the whole thing became largely about characters and their stories and drama. You wouldn't play any missions absent of heroes and some sort of narrative. No longer were you playing the campaign just to enjoy core gameplay and to defeat tougher enemies – you were playing chiefly to see what happens next and the gameplay was to some extent a vehicle for that.
Most of the fanbase seems to believe that this was a straight-up upgrade by every metric. Warcraft 2 doesn't get much love, while Warcraft 3 is hailed as one of the best games ever made. And I do agree with the last statement. Warcraft 3 is indeed one of the best titles in the genre to date.
However, I am not convinced that it is strictly better in every way than its predecessor. It is certainly a better game on the technical level, yes. The engine allows you to do so much more and it is objectively far superior. Yet on the "spiritual" or philosophical side of things, it's not so clear cut. There's something to be said for both types of play – that being a pure RTS and an "RPS", as it were.
Comparing Warcraft 2 and 3 directly is inherently unfair because of their technical differences. The former is clearly much, much more archaic and simplistic in its underpinnings. You could only compare and contrast their design philosophies if they were both produced in the same engine with the same resources available to them. A more pure, heavily-gameplay focused RTS, and a more story-oriented game with prominent RPG elements.
Personally, I don't think one of these is better than the other – they're just different with their own strengths and weaknesses. And there's certainly no point in singing praises to Warcraft 3. Many have done this before, including (recently) one of my favourite video game content creators, Giant Grant:
But while Warcraft 2 never seems to get this level of appreciation (which is understandable in its original form), I truly don't believe that its design philosophy is inherently inferior. A pure RTS – where it's all about controlling units, managing resources and solving problems with what tools you have available – is an extremely rewarding genre. If it's executed well, it's a joy to play, which is why the original Starcraft was so successful. And Warcraft 2 was, in fact, much like it. Deeply satisfying to play and entirely focused on the RTS experience. It was brutal and unforgiving, units would die fast, and correct micromanagement was frequently the difference between your army dying in seconds and you being victorious.
What I am unhappy with, is the state of affairs, where many don’t seem to get this distinction. When I see high quality content being made in Warcraft 3 based on Warcraft 2, the core design philosophy is typically changed to that of Warcraft 3, as though that is just better in every way. And not just that... the formula even gets pushed far beyond the scope of Warcraft 3, putting an all-out epic RPG level of emphasis on the story and characters.
Here I am talking chiefly about the "Chronicles of the Second War" project, which is extremely impressive and well-done, crafted with incredible level of professionalism and care, yes… but at the same time it completely misses the mark in terms of design philosphy and genre. It's amazing what they've done, no doubt, but it's totally spiritually removed from Warcraft 2. The sheer emphasis on cinematics, dialogue and lore makes Warcraft 3 seem like a game that is light on story by comparison. And I just cannot accept that. I genuinely dislike it. It's technically amazing, but entirely tone deaf and misguided at the same time, and I feel no desire to play it despite having a deep love for Warcraft 2. I do still replay the original from time to time.
So when I saw this project, I started wondering if I could produce something that is more of a true, spiritually aligned evolution of the original that I so adore despite all of its faults. Up until this point I've never produced a fully fleshed out map in the Warcraft 3 editor – I couldn't even come to grips with the trigger editor. But I still thought that maybe I could create a halfway decent re-imagining of Warcraft 2.
[ THE EXECUTION ]
With all of that said, my vision was never to simply replicate the original Warcraft 2 experience or to religiously follow the original design philsophy. No, the idea I had in my mind was a Warcraft 2.5 – not quite 2 and not quite 3, but somewhere in the middle instead, borrowing elements of each.
Light on story like 2, with only a dash more of dialogue and interactions (Starcraft style, but even less character driven), but at the same time boasting a rich, detailed world and a more varied gameplay like 3. In my mind I saw maps alive with creeps, side quests, easter eggs, events and triggers, yet unshackled from grand narratives and personal story arcs. Purely the gameplay side of Warcraft 3, unleashed. Explore the maps, find different ways to solve the problems that arise, level up your heroes for the mission (they don't carry over, much like in 2), trigger events, defeat the enemies. Pure RTS, pure Warcraft... just much more advanced than 2 was.
This is what I set out to do, and I believe I've had a reasonable degree of success with the first map, Hillsbrad, even though as I’m making the second one I can certainly see how it could be improved.
The difficulty is tuned for RTS veterans. The assumption is that you've played all of these games and then some, and that you know what you're doing. It's not actually hard, but you are expected to utilize the basics of good management, like withdrawing wounded units from combat. If you don't do that, you will struggle.
However, the bottom line is that I tried to design this to be enjoyable to play for an RTS enthusiast. There are multiple layers of gameplay that you have to manage simultaneously – exploration and offence, objectives, defence, economy – and I did my best to balance them in a way that you always have something to do, and that you always have to put a bit of effort into whatever you're doing, rather than A-moving and sitting back.
The original Hillsbrad was a snooze-fest of a tutorial mission, while Warcraft 3 opens with trying to be an RPG-lite. This is my attempt at producing an engaging opening mission to a campaign designed specifically for seasoned veterans of the genre. How much I have succeeded or failed is for you to judge. But if you do love both of these games for what they are, then I suspect you may find some resonance with my creation.