WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos

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
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 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.