Reviews  •  Latest Reviews  •  Top Games  •  Forums  •  Screenshots  •  Hot Deals! PS3  •  Wii  •  PC  •  PS2  •  PSP  •  Xbox  •  Xbox 360  •  GameCube
WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos for Windows, Mac Videos >>
WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos for Windows, Mac
View Screen Shots >>
Upload Screen Shots >>

WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos for Windows, Mac
268 reviews   3.73 of 5

Product Description

Sound

I always turn the music off.

Gameplay

Let me sum up game play for you. Get a hero as fast as you can and get him some supporting units and go out to level him up. You must do this faster than your opponents or you will lose for heroes are the core of the game and a boring one at that. They can level up, but there are few real choices in what skills they get. Item are either very hard to come by or insignificant. Resources and base building (my favorite parts in RTS) are downplayed so much as to be almost unimportant. Also that annoying upkeep, where you get less resources if you have more units, is the dumbest thing in the world. It forces you to have rely on heroes to win, and I don't even like the heroes. Blizzard has taken an idea that would have made a good addition to a game (heroes) and made it the focus of the game thus ruining both the idea and the game.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Summary

I've been a fan of Blizzard games such as Warcraft 1, 2, Starcraft, Diablo, DIablo 2, and now i am glad to day that i am also prud of Warcraft III. When it became available to me i rushed out very quickly and bought it. Some of the bozos before me say that this game is a lot worse than starcraft and other warcrafts because it has a hero system. Well, those guys are not very good at rts games. You must have great strategy to be even a slight strip good at this game. Speed and strategy make all the difference. And if you get bored of played 1v1, 2v2, etc games with other people/cpus, then you can play the custom games where your records doesnt count. These games are great because the geniuses of the game make maps with the world editor (me) and come out with rpgs, defense, golemz, and toehr such maps. This game has an advanced engine that allows an immerse environment that you will enjoy if your computer can support the pentium 2 requirments. \

Sound

The music is very tuned in to its time(medieval ages sort of) and has a very impacting feel. Like starcraft's music it isn't fun listening to for the heck of it but is very nice music for you to build your base and battle to.



-------------------------------------------------
My advice: if you like strategy games like command and conquer and starcraft, buy this. But only if your computer can support it or it will suck. Have fun if u get it! If not then stay unenlightened in games.

Gameplay

If you've played Starcraft this game has all the same hotkeys for movement and actions (with new building hotkeys of course) and therefore you'll find it easy to play. If you are new to the crafts then it will become easy but i recommend playing some campaigns before you go online. The game kind of sucks you in until the cetain game is completed. You will rarely want to quit in the middle of a game if you are playin with other people. (also battle.net(the online gaming program) is free!)
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Summary

Overall = 1

Graphics & sound mean nothing if the game can't stand on it's own.

Adding a hero is the major change from any previous 'crafts released by Blizzard. Though it was a nice idea, it didn't fit well in this genre which leads me to say "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."

I mean let's look at the history of the 'crafts:

Warcraft -> Warcraft II -> Starcraft

What changed with the addition of each new 'craft? Warcraft set the stage of Real-Time Strategy. Warcraft II improved upon the sound, graphics, story, interface & hotkeys, and unit/building refining. Starcraft changed the setting, but also improved on each of the above.

Warcraft III tried to change it. Why change the genre when a game like Starcraft (which I recall buying the day it came out 8, yes 8, years ago) is still packed on battle.net? If a game lasts 8 months that's usually looked at as good. After 8 years, you have a phenomena! Improve, don't alter.

Sound

Sound = 3

Sound is sound. Blizzard usually does an ok job, but I never got the 3D vibe, nor did I get any emotion following an audio performance. In other words, you don't turn the lights out and crank the sound like you did when Diablo first came out.

Gameplay

Gameplay = 1

Let's break it down by category since there is so much involved in gameplay:

Combat: Too much micro-managing for a Real-Time Strategy game. The addition of Hero's is the culprit.

Scenarios: As usual, the storyline was great, well mostly. Blizzard didn't smooth out the kinks when adding the Role-Playing element, and this pulls away from the traditional satisfaction.

Multi-Player: Hero's destroy online gaming value. How does one role-play a hero (or three) when you're in a 4v4 game with 7-21 other Hero's fighting for the same couple items? Skip the hero and build troops you say? Ha! Blizzard cracked down on the army aspect of the game that Starcraft and Warcraft I & II thrived on.

Your troop numbers are not only limited, but if you approach the limit, you get penalized monetarily! The days of massing 50-100 troops and heading into battle are over! Now you can only gather a dozen or so & a hero before you start seeing reprocussions.

So how does multi-player fare then? Does the term "rush" mean anything to you?
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Summary

Horrible. This is unfortunately one large marketing ploy. This game has absolutely nothing going for it besides the amazing cinematics. In the single player campaign you will find yourself playing just to get to the next cinematic. In multiplayer you will find yourself frustrated quickly that games are often decided by how lucky you are on creeps and the items off the creeps. The game is horribly unbalanced and a burden to play at best. The 3d graphics are annoying at best. You can't control your army well since you can't see much of anything with the 3d view. Changing screen resolution does not help as they coded everything to be a ratio to the resolution. In other words, you see the exact same thing at 640x480 that you do at 1024x768. What a waste.

I can't believe Blizzard developed and published this game. I have always been a huge fan of starcraft and had great expectations for Warcraft 3. I was horribly let down. Unfortunately sufficient people have been jaded enough by the name to convince themselves its a good game, so Blizzard will likely continue to produce crap in the future and rely on marketing and advertisement to sell their games.

Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Summary

After spending lots of money on a Big, Heavy and Black box with Warcraft 3, I must say this game leaves much to be desired!
It's too simple, in reality, I think the original Warcraft was as crude as this title, only the third version comes bundled in 3D graphics and very good cinematics.
The campaign is absolutely linear, which is a disapointment. The unit balance is all wrong, providing critical advantages to certain races (if you don´t believe, just go see the online servers and wonder why one of the races is almost never selected...). The AI is basic. Pathfinding is horrible.
Look, I am not here to invent excuses like the last review where the author attacks someone with a diferent opinion than himself. For me, its not a question of being a "hardcore" gamer or a novice. It's the diference between a gold nugget and a simple lump of rock encased in a very apealing box.
If you are after form, go buy it!
If you are after substance, keep playing Starcraft or WBC2.
All in all, the first flop produced by Blizzard (I mean game flop, not comercial flop, of course!).

Sound

Epic sound well suited to the game. Each race as its own music, each unit its own lines. Two thumbs up in this department!

Gameplay

Ouch!
Remember Warcraft 1? If so, you are halfway in understanding this game. Make Warcraft 1 3D, make some special units that can grow in power and follow you from scenario to scenario. Add some very cool cinematics. Final touch: Multiplayer. There you have it, Warcraft 3.
This game apeared 12 years late. Ok, I concede the graphics are way better than what was done 12 years ago, but the gameplay, its the same. The heroes are overpowered and boring to level. Multiplayer suffers from very serious unbalance issues.
The campaign is uninspired and strictly linear.

Ok, you can persuade yourself you are playing the game of the year, but soon you will find how void, how boring, doing the same things over and over again disguised with another names becomes.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Sound

If everything went as good as the sound, it would be a decent game.

Gameplay

Ouch! Play Warcraft 1. Add to it some special units that raise 3 stats with experience. Add 3D graphics 1999 vintage. Voilá! Gameplaywise, there you have Warcraft 3!
The game concept is very simple. Few resources, few diferent units, few buildings. The saving grave of the title could be the proper implementation of the Hore, but alas, not even in this department could Blizzard (hard to believe Blizzard did it wrong!) shot on spot, even after "borrowing" a well implemented concept from other games.
The 3D graphics, while entertaining, serve no porpose other thanmaking it harder to control the battles, as the player needs to continuously rotate his point of view in 3D in order to be able to be aware of all the units. Believe me, its dificult.
Multiplayer could be fun if the maps were remotely fair for both sides. They are not. The power to win the game comes from the Heroes, their equipment and their level and with the introduction of "creeps" (neutral creatures) with powerfull artifacts, the player who has more creeps closely, will have a very strong upper hand.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Summary

Warcraft 3 was obviously the most hyped game of last year. With that said, one must realize first the level of their expectations before making a judgement on this game. I have read several reviews bashing this game, saying it lacks innovation and what not. I doubt very seriously they took the time to truly get involved in this game and recognize it for what it was - a work of art. My first impression of the game was Warcraft 2 with better graphics and less units (there is no naval combat). However, what I soon realized was that the game actually brought an element of strategy and micromanagement that lacked from previous RTS games. The addition of upkeep, which provides a cost for higher army populations, adds another aspect for players to be aware of. The most notable, and arguably greatest addition is that of hero units. Each hero has a set of three abilities, which are improved at each hero level. At level 6, the hero unit may pick his/her ultimate ability, which can change the tide of battle. While a single hero is not enough to win a battle, it is the combination of a well balanced army AND a hero that ultimately results in one's success.

Sound

Sound is what we've come to expect with blizzard titles - next to perfect. The music is phenomenal and the voices are diverse and clear. Clicking on a unit multiple times still results in a number of unique and rather humorous phrases, and the music brings the player right into the action, or so it seems. If nothing else, the game's sound only adds to this revolutionary title.

Gameplay

This is where the game truly shines. One could argue that in Warcraft 2, it was all about who built faster and who had the bigger army. Well, with upkeep and army limits, it's more about how well you can manage your troops on the battle field - giving it both a tactical and strategical element. I won't deny that leveling one's hero is essential in winning the game - that's what creeps are for - however, one high level hero is simply not enough to defeat a well balanced army. A key to this game is strategically building an army specifically designed to thwart your opponent's army. One can not simply mass a large amount of heavy melee units and expect to win as a few air units will be able to destroy the entire force. Conversely, massing heavy air will be defeated byspellcasters or ground to air units.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Sound

Aurally, Warcraft is as rich as any truly AAA title needs to be. The battle sounds are sufficiently deep and rumbly, and the music is appropriate though not always inspired. Warcraft's signature character voices are generally amazing, occasionally brilliant, and always interesting. For example, the goblin balloon brigade in this iteration mimmocks the insane cries of the parrot from Starship Titanic. Of course, that's all the voices are: aurally rich and amusing cultural references that have little to do with the game itself. Still, a good audio outing all around with a bonus point for the humor.

Gameplay

The gameplay of Warcraft 3 is really where it shines. If you have been following Warcraft 1,2 and Starcraft, the progression to Warcraft 3 seems natural. The humans and orcs resemble their counterparts rather faithfully, and the undead resemble the zerg. The elves feel somewhat akin to the humans from Starcraft. Either way, the teams are well balanced, perfect for the kind of non-symetrical multiplayer that was attempted in the first Starcraft (and achieved with the expansion).

Nothing here is terribly revolutionary, though. To use an outside analogy, Starcraft is to Warcraft 3 as Street Fighter Alpha 3 is to Capcom vs. SNK 2. It has a similar engine with a few new twists and some new combatants but still good fighting all around. Previous combatants should be able to begin training right away.

The one player game is varied enough that the missions are fun, but they do take a very long time to complete. Nearly every level has a different objective, but at 1-3 hours each, and with similar strategies to success it teeters between being terribly exciting and getting old.

But this is warcraft. It is about multiplayer.
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Sound

Good sounds. THe usual epic music and nice speeches...

Gameplay

You know the drill... build some structures, control some resources, recruit a bunch of units and send them to wreak havoc in your enemy camp.
The "novelty" in this game is the heroes that can be leveled like in a RPG. Heroes are very strong units that will decide if you win or lose a game. If you lose an hero, you can recruit it later again, so, no big deal with that. There are also some "creeps" lying around waiting to be beaten by the players giving powerful artifacts in return.
All in all, this game copy some concepts from Heroes of Might and Magic (the neutral creatures guarding valuable objects) and others from Warlords Battlecry 2 (the hero that can be leveled, letting the player make some choices regarding his development).
Unfortunately, both aspects are badly implemented. First, the neutral creatures are not as diverse, or as interesting to fight, or as valuable regarding Heroes of Might and Magic. Second, the hero is much less interesting than in Warlords Battlecry 2. The advancement options are few and the true possibilities given by the hero development are very limited.
The only novelty in this game is the 3D aspect of it...
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Sound

The usual fantasy musics with the usual fantasy sounds. Best part in the game.

Gameplay

Thw worst of the game is right here, in the gameplay section. You will need to look to other titles to find complex gameplay with complex decisions to be made all of them intertwisted in each other. In Warcraft III you have a VERY soft game where all you have to do is collect two resources, field more units than the other guy and win. If you are playing a generated scenario, you also need to pay close attention to the "creeps" that hold impossibly good items that will allow you to win no matter whjat the other side is doing. This is specially unfortunate in multiplayer where most of the time the winner of the battle is the player closest to the best "creeps" (btw, a "creep" is a neutral monster that holds treasure).
Now, if you are playing the campaign, you will have to "learn" each map because they are always designed with some very important features that let you move on. Otherwise you will not beat the map. The single player campaign is booooring. Just a simple row of scenarios that must be beaten in order to be able to play the next one. Ah yes, if you beat enough scenarios, you WILL see the cutscenes available (the only rewarding aspect the game has).
Would you like to Comment?
Join VideoGameReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

Sound

Sound is well done. The people voicing them do a good job. The backround music gives you a sense of priority and a good aura to what you are doing.

Gameplay

Really awesome gameplay. But not much different than WC2. You can select more people, (12 vs the previous 9). There are some cool things you can create but they basically all have the same function of WC2. Doesnt take away the fun factor though. Its easy to move things around, build, find goldmines ETC. If you really wanted to you could probably get by with just using the mouse. Its a little irritating watching men, who you just told to attack something, sitting there. The space between characters made by the programmers is a little big, they just have to spend time running around in little circles trying to find a way to hit the target. Some of the weapons are awesome though. You can now rotate ever so slightly the angle upon which you are looking at something with your mouse roller. A zoom feature would be nice though. Kind of cheesy when the mouths of the characters when they are talking move the exact same way every 7 seconds or so despite saying obviously differe