WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos

The Good
Warcraft II proved to be the game which really cemented Blizzard’s legend status among RTS fans world-wide. With Warcraft II, Blizzard added features and game-play options which really pushed the boundary of RTS games and paved the way for their next game, Starcraft which would remain the granddaddy of later-day RTS for a long, long while. Thousands still play Starcraft to this day, so it was not with little fanfare that Blizzard announced their return to the Warcraft universe (and RTS), with Warcraft III.

Warcraft III includes all the features that were included in Starcraft, such as unit group and building hot-keying, vertical ranged fighting, strategic team play, and of course battle.net support (out of the box). It adds a whole slew of new features, the most notable of which is the inclusion of two brand new races - The Undead and The Night Elves. The Undead are included as the game’s new resident bad-guys, forcing the Humans and Orcs to ally, in the face of great danger. In fact, this danger will force them to sail from Azeroth to lands across the sea, where the ancient race of The Night Elf is encountered.

Like Starcraft, the single player experience is plot driven, with campaigns book-ended by pre-rendered animated sequences. If you were impressed by Diablo II and Starcraft’s CG sequences, you’ll be blown away by Warcraft III’s – they are cinematic in quality, being not just eye-candy, but also serving to set the scene and drive the plot in a very impressive manner. Within the actual game, the plot is unfolded by way of in game sequences which utilize the existing graphic engine, albeit from different camera angles. These sequences are very good and the voice acting even manages to maintain a pretty high quality (although the script sometimes leaves a little to be desired).

Taken alone, these sequences don’t pack quite the impact of their pre-rendered brothers; however since they work seamlessly during the mission progression, they really keep the game from becoming just a rush to complete the necessary objectives. The story becomes key and keeps the single player campaign as a story based experience and not merely a tutorial for the player before they try the multiplayer game. To enhance this plot driven dynamic further, a role-playing style sub-system has been added whereby “hero” characters have experience points, special skills that can be learned and an inventory. As the player progresses, so do their heroes. This turns the game into a welcome blend of RPG-come-RTS.

In terms of the meat and potatoes RTS game-play, Warcraft III is a very good addition to the genre, with good and varied races and imaginative units and abilities. One of the best new features that has been introduced, are automatic abilities which can be toggled on and off. This is something that was toyed with in Starcraft’s Broodwar Expansion (Terran Medic) and has been extended here. Once clicked on these abilities will automatically kick in (but will use mana in most cases) until clicked off by the player. This reduces the amount of frustrating micro-management that must be used to get the most out of units’ abilities during a heated battle.

The Bad
The progression to Warcraft III has not been all glory and shiny helmets, however. It seems that the introduction of four races has been more troublesome than the three which inhabited Starcraft. Blizzard seems to have spent much more time balancing units and abilities between the races since the game’s release. Even now, balance changes occur on a regular basis. It’s no disrespect to Blizzard, as the challenge in pulling off four distinct races in the one game must be immense, however it can be a bit frustrating for players to be continually beaten (in multiplayer) by people willing to exploit the latest game imbalance. In some ways, the game might have benefited from dropping either the Orc or Human race (which are quite similar) and concentrating on three very different races (ala Starcraft). From a plot/universe perspective this won’t work, however “The Naga” (a planned fifth race) do appear in the expansion pack, but not as a playable race, for these very balance issues. This was a wise decision by Blizzard, as they have their hands quite full enough as it is!

One major gripe that ex-Starcraft aficionados will mention is the new, lower unit limit and the upkeep system. In Starcraft players were imposed the quite generous unit limit of 200 basic units at once. Warcraft III drops this to 90. This change is almost certainly a technology related one, rather than a considered game-play choice. The prospect of rendering 200 units per player on screen (with each unit having in the order of 200 polygons each), would blow the minimum system requirements sky-high and so the limit is a necessary one. A less necessary change is the addition of “upkeep”. This upkeep kicks in when the player hits various population milestones and acts a tax on the income of lumber and gold. By the time the player has maxed out their units they are losing around two thirds of their income to upkeep! The driving force here is to stop players stock-piling large numbers of units, and to force earlier attacks with a more tactical intent. However it does change the game-play dynamic quite a bit, and may not be to the liking of all fans.

The final point is the experience of multi-player and the battle.net service. Long after everyone is sick and tired of the single-player game, it will be the multi-player aspect which ensures long term success. With regards to Warcraft III, the experience is a little inferior to that of its predecessor (Starcraft) for one reason. Players will quickly find that to stand any chance of winning a battle.net game, they have to follow a specific set of steps at the beginning of every game. This essentially involves building a hero and as many units as possible, as quickly as possible and then “creeping” (i.e. running around the map killing NPCs to gain experience on the hero, before launching an attack on an opposing player. Starcraft included enough different low-level units that any number of strategic paths were open to the player from the outset. Warcraft III is not designed in this way however, generally there are only one or two units to build right away and success is reduced to the choice of hero and effectiveness at “creeping” the map. This is quite a big miss, and one that can’t be patched by a balance fix – it’s an inherent part of the game structure.

The Bottom Line
All in all however, single-player or multi-player, Warcraft III is a very engaging RTS, with a good story and high production values. Most of all, it shows that Blizzard have made a successful transition to 3D whilst adding game-play enhancements to their premiere RTS formula.

The Good
I was wary of Blizzard going 3D for Warcraft III - after all, I felt Westwood's Emperor: Battle for Dune was largely hampered by the almost complete lack of personality of its 3D units. However, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Blizzard has managed to craft a 3D engine that allows its units to shine in the traditional Blizzard way. It manages to straddle the fine border between cartoonish excess and hand-drawn realism, and I applaud the programmers for that. Aside from the graphics, the design of Warcraft III is uniformly excellent. You get four races to play with, and each is involving and offers a spread of unique challenges and intricacies. Furthermore, the story is engaging, and plot has for the first time in RTS history become as important as the action going on in the field. I really was interested in finding out what was going to happen, especially once you get up to the end of the first campaign... Blizzard has also reinvigorated the concept of hero units. In past RTS games, "hero" or unique units usually were part of mission-specific goals, requiring you to protect them at all costs. While these unique units might have sported slightly higher damage rolls or special powers, I usually found myself squirreling them away in the most protected parts of my bases so that they would not die an untimely death. Warcraft III completely changes this mold, now enabling you to place hero units at the forefront of battles where they belong. These hero units (each race gets three to use) are incredibly powerful, and if you do not field one or two on the battlefield, you are usually asking to get tromped. The orcs' Swordmaster, perhaps the coolest hero unit, is capable of spinning in a blade-wielding frenzy, chopping down multiple enemy units in no time.
I also really loved the fact that the game rewards you for exploring the entire map by offering neutral units to defeat in exchange for experience points for your hero. As your hero increases in levels, he or she gains more and more powers. Furthermore, sometimes defeated neutral units drop items that can further bolster the power of your hero.

The Bad
I really, REALLY hate upkeep. In Warcraft III, the size of your army dictates how much gold is deducted from your income due to taxation. Thus, if you're fielding a relatively small army, all the gold your workers collect will flow into your coffers. However, once you build up your army to respectable numbers, you'll find more and more gold vanishes even before it reaches your coffers. Thus, if you launch a major attack against an enemy while burdened by high upkeep, you'd better hope you win - otherwise, the loss of gold due to taxation will render you almost incapable of defending against a counterattack. Upkeep is probably useful in stopping rushes in multiplayer and encouraging more strategic play. Fine and dandy. But what's the point in single player games? Often, you'll be facing three or four separate enemy camps, all bent on wiping you out. With the deck stacked thus against you, why cripple you even further with upkeep? I found this aspect of the game to be the most frustrating, and I hope Blizzard does not make this a recurring feature in future RTS products.

The Bottom Line
Take Warcraft II, stir in some Starcraft, blend with a 3D engine and some innovation and you get Warcraft III. Also, I highly recommend the cool special edition, if you can find out - all the extras are worth the $70 price tag.

The Good
WCIII goes a bit further into "roleplaying game" territory than any of its predecessors did. In Starcraft, you had "character" units, true, but they weren't much more than standard units colored differently, and with unique character portraits. Warcraft III goes hogwild, here, making Hero units VERY different from standard units, complete with colored patterned underlighting effects that make your heroes stand out no matter WHERE they are! In the single-player game, heroes play an important role in the plot; in multiplayer, they're basically very powerful, very expensive units. As if that wasn't enough, they've also added "creeps" -- random monsters that are neutral to all players, and wander around attacking or being attacked by you. Some have treasure and magic items that can improve your heroes... in a lot of ways, it felt a bit like Diablo Meets Warcraft... The scenery is fantastic. The look of the game has been enriched in every way.

The Bad
1. No ships? No oil? Nope. This element of the game was dropped completely.

1. Upkeep. Depending on the size of your force, you get "taxed" -- a medium sized army means each peon is docked three gold before he even gets it to the town hall, and with a major force, he's docked even more. What the heck was THIS all about?

2. Any player now has a maximum food outlay of 90. This puts a SHARP limit on how many troops you can have, and what type. This is, I suppose, something that's supposed to make you play smarter, instead of depending on "zerg swarms" and "tank rushes"... but, well, hell, I LIKED tank rushes...
   
   The Bottom Line
   If you're a diehard RTS gamer, in the Age Of Empires and Total Annihilation vein, you will hate this game. Don't buy it. If you're an adventure/RPG gamer, you won't like this game. Too much RTS in it. ...but if you're the kind of person who can appreciate a delicate mix of the two, it's really quite good...

The Good
WarCraft III is a real-time strategy game with some role-playing game elements based in a fantasy world (which actually bears quite some resemblance to Games Workshop's Warhammer setting). Actually, the very definition of what genre this game falls into has caused quite some stir among fans, most people apparently expected a game that's closer to WarCraft II, or perhaps StarCraft, and apparently did not get it. I'm saying apparently, since at this point I have neither played WarCraft II or StarCraft; WarCraft III is the first Blizzard game that I have played so I'm unbiased in that regard.

You are in command of one of four fantasy races: Humans, Orcs, Undead, and Night Elves. After a short tutorial and an introductory cut-scene you start out playing the humans. The object of the game? We don't know yet, but the cutscenes that follow every mission advance a very enjoyable and engrossing storyline. You raise armies, erect structures, advance heroes in level, and advance on a limited tech tree to improve your buildings and troops - so far, quite the typical RTS game, but there are some differences.

First of all, the game's visual appeal is breathtaking. The actual game manages to be colorful and detailed, beautifully animated, without cluttering up the screen. I've played far too many strategy games where the main challenge came from me not knowing what's going on - all of the sudden there were too many units on the map and everything either slowed down or became completely confusing. Not so in WarCraft III. The controls are very easy, point-and-click, scrolling is smooth, interface is flawless. Thus, this game is easy to learn and intuitive to control, yet difficult to master.

Your units are twofold: Heroes, who much as in role-playing games, gain experience and advance in level, equip magic items, can be raised from the dead, etc., and regular troops. Your heroes are your main characters who are not only the focus of the storyline and the cutscenes, but also are quite buff and almost indispensable in combat. This is actually quite refreshing; I've played far too many games of "if character X dies you lose"-nature. In WC3, you don't protect your heroes, you make 'em wade into battle.

Your regular troops and workers (who gather resources and build buildings) require upkeep, anywhere from 1 to 5 units of food each, and the maximum food worth of units you can control at all times is 90. Depending on how close you approach this limit you'll get taxed quite a bit on your incoming resources. This little stipulation has caused quite some stir among gamers; it seems many did not like it. I firmly believe this limit has been put in place for game parity (and not, like some players have suggested, due to technical limitations - in WC3 - Frozen Throne expansion pack, this limit has been bumped to 100 and in certain missions you get to play 2-3 factions at once and the game still performs fine), and it's a welcome move. Do you stack up on troops and get taxed on upkeep, or do you put only light defenses into place and gather gold? Tactical decisions are everything here, and it's most welcome - I'm sick of games of "hoard the troops, then attack the enemy"

The missions are very much varied. Some missions require you to build units, advance tech, and kill the enemy before they kill you. Others require you to defend a certain area against a time limit, gather a certain magical item, explore a tomb, and so forth. Some missions feel more like a RPG dungeon crawl, and the maps are as varied as their missions. After each mission there is another cutscene to advance the storyline, and they're good. They do feel like a reward to a player for finishing the previous mission and keep the player going.

Oh, and what a storyline it is! It's simply beautiful and engrossing. As you will find out, each of the four faction heroes (Orcs, Humans, Undead, Elves) as well as the Demons (who are not a playable faction but are the main bad guys) have their own agenda, and there are shades of grey - no clear cut good or bad guys. The brave Paladin is so zealous in his pursuit of the undead he kills innocent villagers because of the risk that they might be infected, the undead wants to rule the world but doesn't like being the demons' pawn, the orcs are bloodthirsty brutes but want peace for their horde, etc. There's no good or bad, and until the last mission I was holding my breath as to who "wins" the game and how the story actually ends. WarCraft has inspired a series of paperback novels at this point, and I'm actually looking forward to reading them at this point.

Oh, and the easter eggs! The blowing up sheep, and witty comments the units make when you click on them repeatedly, etc. etc... it's refreshing to see that the guys at Blizzard enjoyed making the game as much as I did playing it...

The Bad
Well, there are some suggestions for improvement, but most are nitpicks. There is no unit experience (other than heroes). You cannot group units (you can control up to 12 units at once, but you can't make sure they are permanently grouped). You HAVE to play the four factions in specific order, you can't choose to play a certain faction. I certainly didn't mind, but some players would. There are some other nitpicks as well, but most got fixed with the Frozen Throne expansion set.

Other than that, most of the gripes from other players seem to come from the fact that the game, well, isn't WarCraft II. Or StarCraft. Well, duh. Remember the original Dune, the adventurish-style game by Virgin set in Frank Herbert's universe? Well, if Dune 2 hadn't been so radically different, the real-time strategy genre would never have been invented. I don't think the guys at Blizzard said "well, gee, let's take WarCraft II, pep it up a little, and voila! We have a successor!" They just tried to make a good game and in my book they succeeded at every level.

The Bottom Line
Argh! I just beat the game on medium and was presented with an awesome ending, and a very lengthy and funny ending cutscene which was a joy to watch... until the game told me to try and "beat the game on hard and then come back"! There's a different ending on hard and I've yet to find it, and with such a simple sentance I've been doomed to another couple of sleepless night so I can uncover this as well... oh, and bring on the expansion pack! Frozen Throne awaits, and I can't wait. I've spent many hours beating the single player missions and I haven't had enough yet. This game has the highest production values I've seen in a long time, is insanely addictive, and a tour de force in just about every way.

Highest recommendation.

The Good
First off, it is graphically awsome. If you have the power to run at full details, it's rather stunning. Sadly, you need a beast to be able to run at full details, and not lag in games, especially 4v4.

This is a fast game, and I like fast games. You'll need to make quick decisions to be able to get anywhere levelwise.

This brings up the micromanagement. This game requires a very large amount of micro. If you aren't able to manage every unit in a battle, you're going to lose games. Being able to spot which unit is getting hurt, and moving it away; being able to cast hero spells as soon as they are available; never having a break in production (all at the same time) is crucial to winning. Luckily, the population limit is so low it's a bit easier. The population limit is 90, but it's essentially 70, because once you go over 70 you start paying 7 gold as "upkeep" for every 10 gold you mine. Once over 40, you pay 4 gold for every 10 mined. And, of course, almost nothing takes only one population point. The armies are quite small compared to previous RTS games.

The heroes are a nice RPG twist to the RTS genre. Each race (Night Elves, Undead, Orcs, and Humans) have three heroes from which to choose. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The hero you choose at the start can, and should, greatly effect your tactics in the game. For example, if you are Humans and playing vs an Undead, you would strongly consider the Paladin hero as one of your early choices, as he has a spell that not only heals your units, but harms Undead units. If you, as an Orc, decide to go for the Tauren hero, you will find that a defensive style is probably the way to go. Etc, etc.

The creeps (units controlled by the AI) are another interesting injection into this game. Special places on each map (a health fountain, fr example) are guarded by creeps, ranging in difficulty from terribly easy to terribly hard. Killing these creeps with a hero nearby allows him to gain experience, and therefore, more skills (just like an RPG, as mentioned). They also drop items which can be used by your heroes.

Lastly, if you just want to go online and play a game, it is simple as can be. Just a couple clicks, and Bnet will match you up with another person, within a certain level. Levels are basically a meter of your skill. More wins and you will go up in levels. Lose, and you could drop in levels. Beating high level people will give you bigger boosts then lower people. It is another RPG concept inserted into Warcraft III.

The Bad
The micromanagement can still get incredibly overwhelming, and if you don't keep up, it will quickly destroy you. Trying to process all the information isn't always easy for us people over 20.

The creeps have lead to several, shall we say, cheap tactics. On certain maps, it is quite easy for an orc player to quickly destroy VERY high level creeps, and have the experience go to their hero, without sacrificing more then a peon. This, of course, leads to a huge advantage within five minutes, and theres almost no way to overcome this.

The fact that you get so few units leaves little margin for error. Lose one little unit by mistake, and it could cost you the battle, and if you're not careful, the entire game. Losing a hero is even more catastrophic, as they can take a while to revive, especially at higher levels.

There is little variety. Each race has a pretty specific thing they do to win, and the only difference is who has the better micro. Sometimes you will be surprised by a different strategy, but not too often. It can get rather dull. I know of several high level players who do the same thing every game, no matter what they are facing, and they tend to win because their micro is insanely good. There's just not much you can do against that.

The Bottom Line
A decent, fun game. RPG elements help make it more then a simple RTS, but little room for error can make it a very frustrating experience.

The Good
4-race campaign and you get to play for opposite sides in order to advance the reasonably cliched and reasonably fun grand plot. This was done in StarCraft as well, but that game was crap because it took place in some weird place which looked all samey and dull to me, visually. I like playing in lush green worlds, with rivers and trees and grass and waterfalls (!!!) and cliffs and sheep. You're going to really love this game if you're a sheep. Baah. Sorry.

The in-game graphics are cool, entirely 3-d, though it took me some time to notice. If you, like me, don't read game documentation, then what you have to do is scroll that little thing between your two mouse buttons. If you don't have it, then this game is going to be basically 2-d isometric to you. As a matter of fact, that's the case with everybody else as well - scrolling the button and pushing the Pgdown keys and whatnot will only change your viewpoint momentarily, just so you can assure yourself that it IS in fact 3-d. It has no purpose in the game whatsoever, and you will invariably do all the actual playing from basically the same viewpoint as Age of Empires, Warcraft 2, etc. It's just better looking is all, and you get a better, more realistic 3-d landscape of hills and cliffs and stuff like that (no more endless flats like WC2). And the landscapes are a bit more varied than I might've given the impression of them being - there ARE a lot of greens (esp in the Elf campaign), but there are also a lot of cold frozen wastes (in the human campaign), deserts and volcanic landscapes (Orc campaign) and in the Undead campaign you actually get to DESTROY the nice green forests. And as long as it's for an evil evil cause, that just diversified the game for me. And besides there are swamplands (sort of), villages, CITIES (real big ones, with castles and everything) and a lot of caves and dungeons.

Conceptually, the biggest innovation is the Diablo-styled (experience means levels, levels mean more and better spells and combat abilities) hero units - big, bad killing machines with an ARSEnal of totally ARSEkicking combat spells and some neat items they could pick up (only 6 slots in the inventory though) like healing potions, mana potions, strength-raising amulets, speed-increasing boots, the whole RPG-schmear. To be honest, the spells weren't that great for all characters, but with some heroes you could actually go out on your own, periodically summon some wolves or water elementals to fight for you and take care of the various sub-quests and small skirmish-situations littering the map without disturbing your base defenses or costing you any actual units.

And the hero units certainly add a lot more immersion - they each have their voice and personality and motivation, and they are effectively your direct representatives on the field (though you often get two of them in a single mission). They really FEEL like commanders, they're at the forefront of every battle and from the get-go you'll feel really lame going anywhere without them - as a rule, if you're going anywhere with a group that doesn't contain any heroes then you're most probably using them as cannon fodder and don't give a hoot about what happens to them.

The gameplay itself was quite varied - some missions were basic affairs of build your base, build up some basic defenses, then get an attacking army together and take out your enemies one by one; some missions were focused on defenses, where you had to frantically build up an arsenal of defensive structures while beating back wave after wave of attackers (the last Undead mission and the last Elf mission were particularly tough); in some missions you have allied forces that you could make excellent use of; in some missions you are running against the clock; and some missions were classic Wacraft style dungeon crawls without any base at all, but this time around these missions actually RULED instead of sucking like in WC1 and 2 - hero units making ALL the difference here. And besides that, every map contains a lot of interesting stuff like goblin merchants where you can buy potions and scrolls, mercenary huts where you can buy actual units to fight for you (some with special abilities that your own units don't have) and a load of various neutral (well sort of, they'll attack you anyway) units like dragons, a variety of beasties, gargoyles, renegade mages, etc. Some of them are just for fun, but some guard an item that your hero can use. Some again won't attack you at all, but will ask you for help in exchange for some reward - destroy some wizard polluting the forest and we'll give you some of our units, or marry my daughter and we'll give you a weed that cures impotence (humor).

All of this helps to make the game strategy much more extraverted than in most, if not all, other RTS's - you'll have your heroes and groups of units walking all around the map from very early on in most missions, gathering experience and units, scouting, taking opportunity of the health and mana restoring wells, and in the process gaining territorial control. Some people have complained that this, and the fact that several missions are timed, is unfair on the defensive players, but in my opinion it is a very welcome change of pace - before I played this game, I considered myself a defensive player as well, but the variety of tactics available for this game cured me of that stereotype. Let's face it, most other single-player RTS's DON'T give you a freedom of choice between defensive and attacking play - they're heavily geared towards defensive tactics, building up a strong base and only then going into attack. In Warcraft 3, the balance is completely changed towards a far more action filled, extraverted style of play and I can't help feeling that the opposition to this and new things like upkeep, 90 food limit and focus on hero units is just going to turn into an RTS analogue of harcore RPG gamers who think that anything with less than 60 stats is geared towards people who can't think and chew gum at the same time. You just wait until these battle.net t-shirt wearing creeps start calling this Warcfart 3 (if this isn't happenning already), and you'll see what's what. Warcraft 3 is FUN, ENGAGING, DYNAMICAL and VARIED - it's not about sitting in the trenches until you've got all the upgrades and a 100-head army which then cleans out the level with no opposition.

The other good things: the cinematics rule (though there are only 4 or 5 of them), the undead princes have way cool voice effects (and the chief baddie is really great), the race differences are cool (esp elves and undead), the interface improvements are very useful, the are practically no bugs, the plot always has the most important events take place on the actual battlefield, with you in control, and for Godssakes, you get to play for the UNDEAD, as a DEATH KNIGHT, killing innocent citizens, killing former buddies, pissing on your father's grave and betraying everything that's beautiful and pure! How can you not love it?

The Bad
It does seem a bit unfair that you have to pay for the game in processing-time as for a 3-d game, but what you actually see is a static-viewpoint isometric one. I don't have the most powerful machine around, and I got a lot of lagging despite using the lowest graphic detail settings - the "cool" thing about the lag is that during it the action still goes on as fast as ever. I didn't actually SEE some of my biggest battles - just 2 or 3 flashing images of people beating each other, and then the end result. And despite the 3-d landscape, there are no cool mountain bridges which you could pass both over and under. And the incredibly tightly growing forests are back with a vengeance - several missions actually hinge around the idea that a bunch of orderly-looking trees could be such an obstacle to a group of reasonably-sized soldiers that you'd have to get in catapults and destroy the trees one by one. How ridiculous is that?

Other things: The oil resource is gone, and there are no ships. Air travel is limited and clumsily implemented. Some of the levels are monotonous (and perhaps 4 campaigns with 8-9 levels in each is overdoing it a bit). Some of the voice acting was dumb. You didn't get to play enough as that human sorceress, nor as that crazy blind elf guy. Orc campaign generally wasn't as interesting as the others, and it didn't feel like a really important part of the plot - it felt like a big subplot made up just so you could play as orcs. You can't make random games and the custom game levels provided don't have a difficulty setting, and are too easy - I guess they were geared too much towards multi-player. I couldn't get the sheep to explode.

The Bottom Line
If you think that computer gaming is a sport, you might want to stick away from this. And if you want to command a huge army that defeats everything in its way, you'd probably be better off with a WW2 movie, or a bunch of toy soldiers. But if you want to have lots of challenging, fun-filled gameplay playing fun, comic-book-like characters in fun, comic-book-like plotlines and bashing lots of impressive looking monsters, assorted baddies and evil bosses (that is, when you're not being one of them yourself) this could be the game for you.

The Good
Since this is Blizzard's first 3D game, the graphics are not at all bad, but large battles can be slow sometimes. The heroes are definately a good addition to this game, since they can become quite powerful if you know how to play with them. The units are really balanced and unlike most other strategy games (such as C&C), the units of different races not only differ in colour, and names, but also looks and abilities, making each race have truly unique units. Not only are the units different, each race also has different abilities. For example, most of the Night Elves' buildings can move around and they can see better in the dark, while the undead can only build on blight (similar to the zerg creep in Starcraft). Excellent singleplayer gameplay and has the most incredible cut-scenes I have ever seen, even better than Diablo II's cut-scenes. As with most other Blizzard games, clicking on a single unit for a couple of times makes them say something funny, and since there are so many different units, you can listen to a lot of these comments. WC3 also features a great map editing application. With it, you can do just about everything, from creating your own heroes to the ability to detect key strokes from within the game. Also, now 12 players can be in the same battle for multiplayer, so you can have even more intense battles.

The Bad
This game is just too similar to Starcraft and probably not as good. Mobile buildings, the presence of blight, and how the Undead Ghouls look suspiciously like Zerg Zerglings all looks too much like Starcraft. In fact there are even Starcraft units hidden in the game! Another thing I dislike about this game is how strong the defense towers are. There are many people on the internet who doesn't do anything else but build towers, hundreds of them. Since the food limit is 90 now (so that your strategy now becomes a key to winning), you can only send a few units in to destroy the towers, but most units die without even reaching the towers while catapults could easily be taken down by aerial units within the mass of towers.

The Bottom Line
If you have not played Starcraft yet, buy that instead of Warcraft 3. However, if you are a fan of Blizzard's games or just strategy games in general, then you should buy this. If you figure out how to (and have the time to actually do it) make maps using the map editor, you could make complete different games with it (puzzle, RPG, etc).

The Good
This is by far the best completely 3D game I've ever played, and the first that actually takes full advantage of the 3D terrain. Revisiting the world of Warcraft in a completely 3D environment was a blast.

Warcraft III combines elements of classic RTS strategies and an RPG system to create a whole new experience with RTS', as they did with Warcraft and again with Starcraft. Way to go, Blizzard.

The single player campaign is really good, especially compared to the usual boring storylines that go along with RTS game that only serve as a length tutorial.

The Bad
The game COULD have been great, if it weren't for a number of flaws that seem completely unecessary. First, there's the upkeep. Everyone hates the upkeep. It's unbalanced and makes little sense.

The idea behind the upkeep is, once you reach 40 food consumption, for every ten gold you retrieve, four of it is lost. It's some sort of tax. And when you get to a higher number, you lose 60% of your gold to it! This makes a little bit of sense - the larger your armies, the greater you have to spend to keep'em happy, or something along those lines.

The second horrible thing is the food limit. Starcraft had a pop limit, which was disappointing to most people, but it was a high number; 200, so only rarely did you reach that in your battles. Warcraft III has an attrocious ninety food limit. NINETY. Very few take up one food, most take up two or three, many four, and if I remember correctly, some even five.

The bad, bad food limit combined with the upkeep leaves you with a small army that costs 60% of your income. Your must take this small army and charge the enemy, which, if you're lucky, will destroy some of its defenses, but if the enemy has half a brain, it's going to be able to out defend your pitiful army. So you must regroup and attack. Only problem is, that pitiful army took all your money. And then the enemy attacks. And you're screwed because you can't afford to do anything about it.

The game is very, very unbalanced this way. But, to be fair, you're expected to use your heroes to do most of the strategic fighting, and it usually works because of the spells they have. But it still makes for some unexciting small shortlived frustrating battles.

Another bad thing about the game is the differences between Warcraft II and III. Of course, Warcraft III is a huge step up in the genre, but it loses most of it's "Warcraft" feel. The Human's "elven archer" has been replaced by a gun toting Irishman. There are no ships (none that you can build, that is) and the oil resource has been removed completely. The Orcs no longer look humerously primitive, they look more like the Humans, only..."Orcish".

Warcraft III's story takes place after the unpublished game, Warcraft Adventures, and there is far too many refrerences to the game. If Blizzard hadn't been so proud, and released the game, Warcraft III would probably be much more enjoyable, and we would have another great Warcraft game to play.

There is also no spawn version to install, and the only multiplayer option is a network or battle.net.

The Bottom Line
The single player campaign is a lot of fun, but the mulitplayer is lacking and there are far too many annoyances to make this game worthwhile.

The Good
This was the very first Warcraft game I played. It was so good that I'm now playing Warcraft II BNE edition. The story was very good, providing the background for the battles and adding a sense of risk and reward. Not one single klinker in the voice acting. Music never became repetitive because it added to the drama of the scene as you built your forts. I'd get an exultant feeling when I saw my army decimate the opposing forces after failing and reloading my game. I would be Balancing my forces when they attack and assisting them when they are injured or binded. I had a blast learning how to use the strengths of every race to win a scenario.

Its the first time I've felt SO guilty about running a cheat code that I'll go back and play a scene without cheating.

BTW, the voice-overs were the funniest of all the Blizzard games.

The Bad
2 things really bugged me about this game. * The long load times.
The 'bubblegum chewing' animation when the characters spoke. It was wretched when LucasArts & Sierra did it in their early Adventure games. Its pretty standard for game studios to lipsync their characters now. It was disconcerning to see that archaic design shortcut in such a A list game.

The Bottom Line*
Fun, challenging, engaging and well worth your money.

The Good
Review Version: v2.1 - Remade my previous crappy review. Fixed grammar, html, and added input from readers.
Game Version: v1.0.0.1
Difficulty Setting Used: Hard
Tactics used: Total defence. Walls of towers. Units never exceed the 40 population cap.
Finished: Yes. Don't remember when.

When it comes to liking or disliking a product, or anything else for that matter, there are (possibly) 5 things that influence a person’s judgment:

[1] How much exposure the person has to similar products, thus able to compare the goods and the bads of this product with those other products. In this case Warcraft III in comparison to other games in the RTS genre, as well as its predecessors: Warcraft I & II;
[2] What novelties (eg. new improvements) has the product introduced (well, one thinks that the later product should have something new, eh?), compared to earlier products;
[3] How the product was marketed to the public. High marketing will no doubt substantially increase public awareness, but in consequence also demand those expectations be met. Low marketing successes will limit public awareness, but also in consequence require lower expectations from the public;
[4] How influence the person is to the product brand (if exists) and reputation of the manufacturer. In this case the brand is Warcraft, the manufacturer (developer) is Blizzard;
[5] And after all the above, whether or not the product delivers the expectations of the consumer.

Consider all of the above, whether that criteria is logical or not to you. Based on that criteria, I will begin my argumentation that Warcraft III is a product of disappointment and blasphemous to the series. As always, before I trash a game to kingdom come, let’s focus on the good things first, shall we? :)

Disclaimer:
Due to mounting pressure (well, not really :p) from fanbois with obviously no life nor girlfriends, the author takes full responsibility of any trashing involved in this review, including the use of swearing, cursing, personal attacks, global attacks, magical attacks by specifically a +7 Mythril Sword, intended to any person(s) or entities mentioned by the author. MobyGames does not hold responsible for content provided by the author, since MobyGames will probably disavow any knowledge of the author’s existence , regardless that the author is an approver and a long time contributor to MobyGames…er… no, I think MobyGames just suspended by role as approver and deleted my account. :)

Welcome to the Future: 3D Graphics
Warcraft III is the first installment of the series (or any series made by Blizzard, I believe) that uses 3D graphics. This was during a period where, although 3D graphics is no longer new, it was still the phase of experimentation, particularly in terms of gameplay adaptability.

It is a far leap from the 2D graphics of old Warcraft I & II, and despite many many games filled with bugs, crashes and other forms of programming incompetence, Warcraft III as far as graphical stability goes, passes with flying colors. Even with the least required tech specs, the game runs incredibly smooth (although the author does not know whether this applies to multiplayer).

The player will first notice this at the main menu, which is after you notice that the game doesn’t take long to load (Yay!). Usually, with limited tech specs for 3D games (during that time period), one would expect a few seconds of lagging here and there. That here and there does not occur in Warcraft III, what does occur is smooth meteors falling in the background of the main menu. So far, so good.

During gameplay, the art appears to change a bit, at least in theme. If my memory is correct, previous RTS games by Blizzard, including Starcraft, introduced a more “serious-mature” approach. Graphically, the artwork seemed to me a tad “cuter” than its predecessors. But this is of course, subjective.

What was new, in respect to the 3D graphics, was how buildings were created. Now, it seems that there is a step-by-step animation of the buildings being created. Although pretty much standard by “today’s” games, this was a new novelty in 3D RTS games.

Racial Selection
Warcraft III, besides using the standard Human, Orc and Undead Trio, introduced some new races (although only one is selectable), in addition to tweaks here and there to the pre-existing races (although I don’t remember if the Elves were ever a separate race?) The first new race is the Night Elves, which introduces several novelties unseen before in RTS games:

The first is a race has abilities in accordance to “time”. At night, the Night Elves may turn invisible (Hide) indefinitely (useful for hide-and-seek tactics and surprise attacks).

The second novelty of the Dark Elves is “mobile buildings.” Most (not all) buildings are living “treants,” a term familiar for you LOTR fans. These tree-creatures may root themselves as buildings, which then will operate normally as any other building, or they may unroot themselves and travel around. In mobile mode, treants act as other units, capable of attack. They also may eat trees, which will heal them over time, however they seem to be extremely vulnerable to damage in mobile mode, and moving around takes forever.

Night Elves also have buildings that heal and restore health and mana points. A bit too powerful in this aspect. This building is the standard “house” of other races. Compared to the humans, their house practically has no use at all. The houses of Dark Elves (Moon Wells) act as the ultimate defense structure for your defending units. In resource management, Night Elves have unlimited resources to wood, as they do not cut down trees. However, wood collecting by the workers (wisps) does take a bit longer than other races.

The other races, though not selectable (viewable only in campaigns or officially custom scenarios) are Blood Orcs (er…I think that’s what they are called): tougher and stronger than the average orc, fighting one is like fighter 3-4 ordinary orcs and the Corrupted Ancients, a darker version of the Night Elves.

Racial Tactics
There at least to my opinion, seems to be a quite imbalance for the Human race…which doesn’t seem to have any racial benefits attributed to them. Orcs for example, prompt the player to become on the offensive. This is because of the “pillage” technology, giving certain orc units the ability to gain resources (gold and wood) when damaging enemy structures. Their structures are well defended (if researched) may injure attacking melee units.

The undead seem to be balanced in both defense and offensive, if using summoned skeletons (via necromancer) as a primary source of tactics. The undead catapults (Meat Wagons) may collect and store dead bodies for future use. A full load of meat wagons with necromancers is the ultimate offensive tactic for the undead. Multiple graveyards in behind and front of towers act as sleeping defensive units until the necromancers beckon.

The Dark Elves, though one might be inclined to be offensive due to the “Hide” ability, seems to be better off being on the defensive, due to the Moon Wells. A wall of Moon Wells, backed up by defending units and Ancients (towers) is almost impregnable to a attacking force, even more so, as the Ancients have an area attack (like the Human cannon towers) but may also attack air units.

Grouped Unit Ability Mechanics
One additional feature I noticed is when you have a grouped unit, and want to use the abilities of one of the units within that group. By simply pressing “tab” you can select the next unit type within the group and choose the ability manually. In previous games (I think) you had to select the unit manually from the group, which of course is inefficient during combat. Er…is this a new feature or is my memory failing me again?

The Bad
Usually I save the worst for last, but the amount of incompetence in this area has boiled my blood pressure to temperatures unheard of by bloodthirsty orcs.

Game Mechanics
Bonk

That’s the illusionary word in your head when you see your units moving bumping into each (repeatedly) during combat. The artificial intelligence used in correlation of movement within this game, is equivalent to a really-really stupid unanimated doorknob, which is probably goes the same to whomever designed this specific feature.

Units don’t have much creativity when finding a path. They don’t go out of their way to find an unblocked path, nor do units make way for other units trying to pass. Now this is something that was never a problem in ANY RTS game. Suddenly it’s a problem now.

Due to this stupid feature, many units die useless deaths because they are either caught between a building and another unit, or they are just stuck because the path they want to go is blocked, so they just move around there in circles, waiting for the path to be unblocked or player intervention. Thus, a retreating war party during combat is bound to have accidental deaths, due to allied units being stuck here and there. I have one too many incidents where my heroes died, because he/she was obstructed by an advancing allied unit, which stubbornly does not want to make way either.

Why, oh why, didn’t they notice this?

This feature can only go undetected, depending on:
[1] what level of intelligence the player/developer is used to
[2] what level of intelligence the player/developer is used to
[3] what level of intelligence the player/developer is used to.
Did I mention intelligence already?
And what intelligence am I referring to? One word: Swarm.

Any RTS game where primary offensive tactic is swarming (winning by over-running the enemy with a bulk of your units) isn’t a strategy game, it’s an advanced platform game: ie. WarMario.

Let’s do a comparison shall we? Do you know what the best RTS game of all time, in correlation to strategy and tactics is? Starcraft? No, it’s amazing storyline and balanced units are close, but the game mechanics are pretty much standard. It’s Age of Empires 2. Though Microsoft may suck at making stable OS and browsers, Microsoft Game Studios went out of their way to create a standard of strategy, which was unfortunately ignored by today’s RTS gamers who have the IQ of the aforementioned inanimate object.

We’re talking about formations, we’re talking about units that have bonuses against other certain units, we’re talking about units smart enough not to engage enemy units when told not to, and don’t get lost when you send them to the edge of the map, cause you’ll know they’ll get there.

Did you know that in WarCraft III, there isn’t a “Guard” or “Defend” ability? You can kiss ambushes/surprise attacks good-bye, because they’ll just attack anything that comes close to them. The “Hold” ability is useless because it isn’t permanent, anytime you move them, the Hold position cancels itself. Now my strategic options come down to seeing my units bump each other all the time. Unless you change the “b” to “h”, now that would be interesting… :)

Units also do not have a "do not freakin' attack" option, which is quite invaluable when trying to "trick" the computer AI. Sometimes, your whole attack plan gets screwed just because one little unit get a wee bit too close to any enemy, and starts firing away...jeopardizing the whole group and alerting the enemy to your presence.

Bonk.
Boy, I hate this word now.

<hr />

I am not a casual strategy gamer. I am a serious hardened strategy gamer that demands complexity in a genre dubbed “strategy.” Now Warcraft III is a great game for only casual strategy gamers, which really don’t want any deep thinking involved like planning out your base, creating a wall of towers, using houses as barricades and other forms of creative use in strategy. That, strategy gamers is what strategy games is all about: planning and executing. If creating a bulk of units to swarm the enemy is what strategy games is all about, then I must agree that the next generation becomes more stupid the prior one, and my generation was pretty darn stupid as it is.

But how do you know that swarm is the only tactic in this game? Many reasons. Here’s some:

[1] Units die easily. Too easily. When a hero or unit can kill an enemy unit with a couple of punches or one magical spell, then it does leave much room of creativity for defensive tactics. In this game, much to Confucius disappointment, you SHOULD kill a mosquito with a cannon;

[2] Unit Upkeep Limitation. This is a new feature, and probably unwelcome by swarm or non-swarm fans alike. Anything more than 40 units will have a consequence of cutting your gold income by 30%. Now this is only applies if your actually collecting gold, it doesn’t apply if you pause your miners and max-out the unit limit. They didn’t have enough IQ to think about that either. So, if you want to keep a stable economy, it’s just 40 unit slots, which probably amounts to less than 20 active units…that isn’t a whole lot of units even for defense. This feature only exists if the developer wants to keep the “swarm” tactic in check. Unfortunately, they did not realize that the “swarm” tactic only exists in games that lack “strategy”.

[3] Weak Towers. Towers are remarkably easy to destory in Warcraft III. Which only means one thing: to support the notion of over-running the enemy with units, if defensive structures have can't resist against a group of infantry units, much less several catapults, might else well fill up the place with units. In "actual" historical warfare, walls and defensive stuctures were the ultimate defence in keeping a city from falling to enemy hands. Since Warcraft (all series) for some stupid reason does not have walls involved (I wonder why), it is pushing fiction a bit too fictionous if overgrown Orcs can destroy certain buildings in a matter of seconds. If the destruction is too fast, there really isn't time for a "counter-attack" plan.

Campaign Scenarios
Whoever created certain scenario missions, I’d really like to send an over-sexed Orc to his or her house. I do know whomever created the scenario’s was definitely not the same person who created the scenario’s in Starcraft, the utopia of RTS scenarios.

There are many scenario’s which are down right irritating because they have a time limit (I do hate time limit) and you have to brute-force your way with units to achieve that limit. So there you have it, the swarm tactic again.

First it was the Human campaign where I had to defend a town against the undead WHILE trying to destroy an enemy grain caravan. Next it was the Night Elf campaign where I had to wake up stupid druids guarded by unbelievably powerful spirits, which by the way you can only reach through the middle of an Orchish encampment. Did I mention you only have 2 days to accomplish it?

And you gotta really love that last campaign. Being over-run by the undead and demon armies. Sure you have allies, but they don't seem to be helping. I'm looking at their gold: around 10,000 gold pierces and they aren't freakin creating units in their barracks...hello, a little help here? I have a tight budget rebuilding towers, and not enough cash to build new units.

There was only one word for the last scenario: Frustration. So if you developers thought it was "challenging," then no, it was not. Challenging is a term you use, when you are in a hard situation and end up overcoming it because of your hard work. Frustration is a term you use when all your hard work really doesn't mean squat.

I really hate it when the developer’s idea of a “challenge” is either to:

[1] Limit resources;
[2] Add a time limit;
[3] Add another goal related to the time limit
[4] Did I mention time limit?

What do you people do for a living? We already have ^%$$%@# dead lines in real life, kindly not mimic that kind of nonsense in “games” shall we? Games were meant to be entertaining, not freakin’ irritating. I remember in Starcraft where scenarios that actually "have" a time limit, you probably couldn't go sight-seeing, but they didn't put you on a tight leash either.

Item Management and Planning
This is when you know that someone really didn’t plan this game out seriously enough, only because in past games, developers plan every single detail.

Heroes have 6 item slots. Those 6 item slots are by the way, not enough. One tends to wonder what all those useless items are scattered around when your item slot is already filled with items, which you have no intention of dropping or already filled with Quest Items you can’t drop either. It’s a minor thing really, but this “minor thing” made me lose respect for whomever designed this game, because simply, other past developers introduced a much-much higher standard of detail than this game offers…as a whole.

And one minor thing, when commanding heroes there's an irritating feature when your hero is (usually surrounded) and suddenly a dialog occurs, prompting the hero portrait to be replaced with whomever is talking to you. The problem is, now you lose information about your hero's Health Points because it's blocked by some bloke with horns talking nonsense. Next thing you know, the hero is about to die (or did) just in a manner of seconds.

The Bottom Line
Bear in mind, I am a Warcraft fan and a Starcraft devote fanboi. I have never been disappointed by a Blizzard product before, and to change from a fanboi to a hateboi, really takes a really lousy product.

Sure, it’s a good game…if you’re only 12 (or think like one). But it’s hard to like good, when you’ve been exposed to great. I mean it's not a bad game, quite good really, but like I said...it's mediocre compared to the "greats" of the RTS genre.

Starcraft…boy do we miss you.

PS. This is probably why the one-player hero RPG multiplayer games (like All-Stars) is a much more hit than the multiplayer RTS. The one-player hero version, however, is something I really love. This review does not apply to that.

<hr />

On that note, I would like to point out the RPG one-player-hero version of the game. There is an official RPG version of the game located in the scenario's folder (use the custom game option), which is pretty fun, since you only need to focus on one unit and there isn't a freaking time limit either. Yay!

The Good
I loved everything about this game. The storyline is so juicy and full of plot twists and all things. The massive amount of units you can have is amazing. And the addition of Hero units with upgradable powers is all the more sweeter. And Blizzard went out of the box with the map maker. You can program events and attacks or whatever you prefer. Program an explosion and just sit back and wait for the explosion. One hundred percent awesome.

The Bad
The only thing i didn't like is that some troops cost more food than others.

The Bottom Line
A perfect RTS experience for any lover of strategy and combat. A must have and must buy. It never fails to amaze.

The Good
The story is really awesome and you can play it without having to play the earlier games first. Each campaign tells a different story and there is a lot of variety in the missions. Even to this date Warcraft 3 still has the best story in a RTS-game ever.

It has some pretty good voice-acting and animation. There is a nice balance between story in cutscenes and story in gameplay/dialog, but what amazed me the most was the voice acting. They got some really good actors for this because I believed every word they said.

The controls are just perfect for a strategy game on the PC. If you need to get some soldiers from A to B in a hurry, you don't have to go through a menu and wait for the soldiers to start moving, it is just two or three clicks and they are on their way.

The soundtrack is pretty damn sweet. The credits song actually got me to watch the whole thing. This is much better than just some black and white animation made in Windows Movie Maker!

The Bad
The first few missions of every campaign are boring and if you are like me and you need to delete games from your PC on a regular basis you will see those levels a lot.

The difficulty curve is rather annoying, some missions are incredibly easy, but the one after can be unbelievably hard. That got on my nerves quite a lot because you don't notice that until you are already thirty minutes in and about to die.

The fights are really small because you can only have like fifty units on the field and this includes your peons. Personally, I prefer my RTS fights to be a little more chaotic, but to the game's credit this does make for a more tactical approach.

The Bottom Line
This is one of the best RTS games out there and if you are a fan of the Warcraft games (especially the MMORPG) or strategy games in general you might want to check this out. People who are more interested in action and chaos will most likely get bored during the first few missions and find the later ones to be too difficult, so my advice to them is to stick with other games.

Do I like this game myself?, yes, yes I do, but only every once in two years when I completely forgot what the story was about.

The Good
I like the way the characters are drawn, the graphical enhancements upon Warcraft 2. The concept of being able to build up your heroes.

The Bad
Micromanagement. They wanted to change it around a bit, so they added micromanagement. Why the hell they wanted to kill a good thing, I don't know. And this isn't coming from a big Starcraft or Warcraft II fan, I played Warcraft II a lot, and I accept change, but this killed it for me. Everything is dependant on the heroes, there's too small of a selection of units, and you can only have 80 food at a time, with the amount of food you need for each unit ranging from 1-5 so obviously you can never have an army to defend and to attack, you have to choose. Upkeep sucks, the lack of upgrades and units sucks.

The Bottom Line
An utter disappointment in terms of multiplayer.

The Good
Not to much. The units were well drawn and the animations were excellent. Also the voices were well done and the maps were varied but the good stuff but...

The Bad
The races, though different, all felt the same to me. Every unit felt like it was mirrored from another race with a couple different magic spells that ultimately did the same thing.

On top of that all the units seemed like mobile structures. How can 3 guys with swords take out a heavily fortifed tower when being shot at by 3 other towers at the same time. Base defences are supposed to DEFEND bases. Not act as temporary brakes on an attack.

People tended to do the same thing every game too. It was a sudden rush of a ton of units every game. No matter the map. That's not very much fun because it's just whoever can rush the fastest that wins the game. There are no tactics, just swarming.

What is the point of being able to rotate the camera? You can't do anything with the rotation and it recenters automatically. Plus you are stuck at the same perspective and zoom levels. The game had so much potential but it wastes it at every chance it gets.

The Bottom Line
Meets the quality of the last 3 [Blizzard]Craft games, being a boring and repetitive reincarnation of the same game just this time with fancy looking graphics.

The Good
The single player mode. Those single player missions, connected by a great story and brilliant cutscenes are really what makes this game worth buying. Playing through the missions of Humans, Undeads, Orcs and Night Elves is really highly entertaining and let's you forget the real world for about 2 days.

The Bad
The multiplayer mode - actually the reason why I could hardly await the release of this game. I LOVED the multiplayer mode of StarCraft with it's many, many tactics and possibilities. But after some days of gaming it became clear that War III is actually a huge step backward concerning multiplaying as the battles are very, very repetitive. War III only knows 2 tactics: rush or tech. That's the only decision the player has to make. No surprises await the player in the rest of the match: Rush: Me or the opponent is dead. Fine. The match practically ends here as mistakes are not forgiven in War III. Tech: After many minutes of hectic building, 2 or more huge armies clash together - a short fight takes place and the game practically ends as base defense is not really a problem in War III (we forget about the rather defensive undead race here).

Well that's it. A typical WarCraft III match. Okay, you learn some spells here and there or try building another unit ... but actually the matches keep being the same again and again. (Most spells are useless anyway and there aren't many unit types either)

So. That's it. Nice try, Blizzard ... but PLEASE go back to the roots with StarCraft 2 !

The Bottom Line
A nice RTS game enriched with RPG elements and a well told story. Fun to play in single player. Yet, if you're looking for a replacement for the aged StarCraft ... look somewhere else.

The Good
Let me get straight to the point......without the custom game included in multiplayer, this game would truly blow. The thought of creating your own mini game for everyone to play on battlenet gives you lots of options. There are so many different custom games you can choose from, that by the time you get sick of one, a new one is added to the list. These mini games range from hero arenas, (where you pick a character and go around killing everyone else), to tower defense (where you constantly build towers to defeat hordes of monsters running across a wide range area). This feature was also included in "Starcraft",also made by blizzard, but is clearly more addictive and entertaining.

The heroes for each race are a nice addition to the single and multiplayer.

This game's graphics are the best I've seen in 3rd person rpg's

The Bad
Don't be fooled by the regular gameplay offered in WC3. It personally scared me away from playing this game. It is by all means disappointing that you have such a reduced limit of units. To me the whole idea is that you have a large army to rape all of your enemies (not literally). By the time you build up your army It seems like you only have 5 piece of crap units that scratch their ass every time you tell them to do something. I dont know why blizzard ruined what was so fun in games like "Starcraft".

Overall, the single player is fun, but i still have some complaints. The story line is predictable and rather stupid (maybe I dont appreciate the story as much, because I have'nt played WC1 or WC2); the cinematics are detailed and realistic, but were a little boring to watch; and even though each mission is unique, it gets very repetitive and the game forces you to work with races that you might find boring.....cough, cough {humans}

Don't let the gameplay of this game distract you from the real fun

The Bottom Line
Dissatisfying to 3rd person rpg fans, but contains addictive multiplayer fun.

The Good
Being a huge fan of Warcraft 2, when I heard Warcraft 3 was being developed I had very high expectations for the title, so when it came out I instantly bought it. And man, what a waste of money that was.

The graphics are pretty good and there's a lot of variation of enemies and locations which are pretty interesting to see. Additionally, there's a lot of custom graphics available on the net. However this is just another way of fooling you into thinking this game is cool.

The editor is very extensive, and still probably one of the most extensive RTS editors to this day. But even so the game has some retarded limitations that can get incredibly annoying at times, and some of the editors aren't nearly as powerful as they seem, like the AI editor. Still it was pretty fun to mess in the editor every once in a while

The Bad
Why the HELL did they turn the fastest RTS game ever made into a RPG piece of crap? Warcraft II is still one of the best RTS games ever made but it hasn't aged as well as other games due to the engine limitations, so I was hoping that Warcraft 3 would have been a great sequel with the same premise but better gameplay and a much better engine. So why didn't it happen?? They ruined the entire Warcraft universe with an overly serious business story with many unlikeable characters, extremely bland, RPG-esque gameplay and a lot of other things.

My main problem with Warcraft 3 is that the game is overall a lot slower because of the addition of RPG elements. As I've said in most of my reviews, RPG elements do not make a game "deep" or "fun" but they just ruin it. I can understand placing RPG elements in an actual RPG game but this is a sequel to the fastest RTS game ever made so it's totally out place. Everything takes way too long to build, to attack and to die. You put two units fighting each other and it takes like 2 minutes for the other one to die. It's not fun at all, it's absolutely atrocious. In Warcraft 2 units would take approximately 6 seconds to die but that's why the game was so much fun to play to begin with, but here it feels sluggish and totally ruined. And they even removed naval warfare!

Of course there's a ton of other issues, most of them still dependant on the fact this is a RPG game. There are new hero units which sound cool on paper but in reality they're incredibly boring to use and manage, since you got to kill random creatures on the map to level up, and I'm sure I already mentioned somewhere how much I hate leveling up, but it goes without saying.

Not only is the build time an absolute joke, but somehow they managed to screw up the population count as well! You can't have more than I think 90 food units, but unfortunately most units take up about 3 food units, with some even consuming up to 9 units. Yes, that's right, it means that not only is the game painfully slow but your selection of units will also be incredibly limited. And apparently the more units you have, the more expensive stuff becomes. I don't think it can get worse than this.

Another new element introduced is an inventory system, which is probably the only decent RPG element in the game (although it's not necessarily an RPG element so maybe that's why it's acceptable), but it's not implemented well at all. Essentially most of the items are just upgrades that give you more armor. As if units didn't take way too long to die already! The idea is nice, it's just the execution that leaves a lot to be desired.

But the most pathetic aspect of the game is that, despite how slow it is, most online matches do not go beyond 20 minutes. How sad. The campaign is varied but it isn't particularly fun, either.

The Bottom Line
Without a doubt the most disappointing game I ever played, and this game marks the beginning of Blizzard's downfall.