User Score
9.1

Universal acclaim- based on 972 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 23 out of 972
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Anonymous
    Apr 30, 2007
    7
    Alright, but not even close to the fun of WC2.
  2. SimonB.
    Jun 1, 2007
    6
    Hey there, hey there. RTS? RPG? MMORPG? Got milk? No seriously, Warcraft 2 was a game I played a lot in my childhood. It was always the second choice after Doom (1,2,ultimate). After a while, I realised Warcraft 2 was getting dull and empty. Like beating a can with a stick. All I found really worthwhile were the sounds. "DA'BURR!" Y'know? Wacraft 3... Well, it's the sequel, Hey there, hey there. RTS? RPG? MMORPG? Got milk? No seriously, Warcraft 2 was a game I played a lot in my childhood. It was always the second choice after Doom (1,2,ultimate). After a while, I realised Warcraft 2 was getting dull and empty. Like beating a can with a stick. All I found really worthwhile were the sounds. "DA'BURR!" Y'know? Wacraft 3... Well, it's the sequel, with revamped graphics, new engine, new everything, really. The game's pretty, let's admit that. The characters look cartoonish and they have always looked that way in the Warcraft series. Removing the ultra-pwnage of getting the biggest and baddest creatures in the game to win it all, WC3 forces you to use heroes. Rather than spam your mines with 20 peasants, you can just use a few in other races. The whole story kind of goes "PFOOT!" after a while. Everything goes predictable in a LOTR kind of way. Multiplayer? I'll admit, I'm more of a single-player person for those games. But on multi-player, I found the same recipee as for all the other Blizzard games. You know specific strategies for each race, you win it all. There isn't much room for innovation, because everyone has done it. Trying to stray from the main track gets you losses. How fun? Expand
  3. Feb 28, 2014
    6
    Best story line with the expansion in a RTS game and in all Warcraft games.
    Very nice missions. 4 different races. One of the best RTS games with Starcraft, Red Alert II, Command & Conquer generals and Dungeon Keeper II
    less : graphics, build in pvp
    Game play : 7/10, graphics : 4/10, back ground : 8/10, lifetime : 6/10, sound : 7/10
  4. AnonymousMC
    Jul 2, 2008
    7
    This game was a revolution to graphics at its time, and the idea of Heroes is good and fun to play. Multiplayer is also very pleasurable, with an amazing map editor in the game. However, after finishing the campaign and moving to B.net, it get a bit boring or irritating. Races are quite unbalanced, so humans are almost forgotten in multiplayer. Also, the hero idea, which seemed good at theThis game was a revolution to graphics at its time, and the idea of Heroes is good and fun to play. Multiplayer is also very pleasurable, with an amazing map editor in the game. However, after finishing the campaign and moving to B.net, it get a bit boring or irritating. Races are quite unbalanced, so humans are almost forgotten in multiplayer. Also, the hero idea, which seemed good at the beginning, turns out to 3v3 hero battle later in game, when heroes become so powerful tear 1-2 units become obsolete, and other wouldn't do much alone. Also battle strategy is missing; it is not possible to defeat a stronger army using highgrounds or keep them at bay with ranged units. All in all, this game turns out to be a hero battle with supporting units, with strategy limited only to what units to train, but still fun to watch the fireworks or play Custom maps on B.net. Expand
  5. HarmL.
    Aug 21, 2002
    7
    I've seen it before in warcraft 2. This game fails to keep me interested.
  6. Dec 3, 2014
    7
    One of the best classic games. Fantastic for its time. My breakdown is as follows:

    1. Graphics: 6/10 - good
    2. Gameplay: 8/10 - great interface and satisfying micro/macro control
    3. Multiplayer: 8/10 - competitive and fun
    4. Story: 7/10 - well-developed and interesting story, bravo

    Overall, decent game.
  7. Aug 18, 2014
    6
    RoC is your typical Blizzard RTS, as in it's dumbed down and has little to no strategy whatsoever. The most strategy you can get out of this game is to learn your enemy's units, learn their weaknesses, and build the units that can work against those. Same as Starcraft, same as all Blizzard cr*p, there is nothing "strategic" in this; We are lightyears away from a decent strategy principleRoC is your typical Blizzard RTS, as in it's dumbed down and has little to no strategy whatsoever. The most strategy you can get out of this game is to learn your enemy's units, learn their weaknesses, and build the units that can work against those. Same as Starcraft, same as all Blizzard cr*p, there is nothing "strategic" in this; We are lightyears away from a decent strategy principle where it's about the wits, brains and ability to surprise, trap or force your enemy. Games like Command and Conquer series or the Total War games are what I'd consider strategy, my victory and defeat are decided upon my decisions and tactics, not my ability to fast-click my units' different spells and powers faster than the AI or foe can.

    But beyond the classic complaint about Blizzard making big public "RTSes" with an obsession with speed that dumbs down all their games, RoC didn't age too well.

    Graphically it's fine, the cartoon appearance of all still holds up well today even if it's old now.

    The real reasons of aging show up in the storyline and the controls.
    For controls it's fairly simple, I feel like I'm always trying to click that one unit I need to click on in a melee of 25 units. It's extremely unpleasant to want to simply throw a spell and lose time because there is no simple way to throw it at the touch of a key. Later Blizz games did better.
    The limitation to 12 units in a group is so ridiculous I can't believe people don't give Blizzard a hard time over it. Even for when the game came out, that was ridiculous. You have to constantly save your groups in slots 1-9, call them, tab through them to get the unit you want or need, and then do it again and again and again at every battle. This game considers that micromanaging is gameplay, it's not. It's lack of good gameplay that demands the player to micromanage, and this game has such a lack. I could say the exact same thing for SC2, but at the very least SC2 didn't give me nearly as hard a time to use my units because I wasn't limited to 12 of them. Same gameplay, but younger game, and it shows. A lot.

    With the controls aside, the storyline has very poorly aged I think. Writing and general cutscene directing is earnest and truly tries to give a grand epic but falls as hard as the Red Alert 1 cutscenes fell-probably harder even. The number of reasons why is too big to count, but I'll just give two, one is that the writing feels like it has about 10 holes per cutscenes, characters either aren't well established, either are going from subject to subject at a crazy pace, either are just throwing one pompous cliche line that ends up falling flat as soon as it's spoken. Secondarily, the general cutscene direction seldom ever makes good use of the environment, you almost always just have your common units looking at each other and no interaction with the environment and extremely little animation. Nothing wrong for 2002 of course, but today, the age shows painfully.

    Lastly the storyline could be considered a grand epic if it was better written(Starcraft2 WoL did a gorgeous writing job and cutscene directing), but I don't think any of the characters could ever be used again, save maybe Thrall and Malfurion Stormrage.
    This may be ranting, but Arthas is a massive tool that is neither likable nor entertaining at all. As a human, he's stupid, arrogant, makes no intelligent decisions ever, falls into obvious traps, and is at best a selfish a*s, at worst a complete tool that literally offers himself to his enemies on a plate repeatedly. As an undead, he's exactly what a villain shouldn't be, he's not admirable, he just obeys his command like a good tool, he's not grand, he comes off like a petty brawler, he's not entertaining, he has neither wits nor style, he doesn't even have the courtesy of being a character because "his soul was stolen". Well, Frostmourne didn't steal just his soul, it took the whole value of Arthas as a villain with it.
    Thrall is better, but he's also surrounded by tools such as Grom Hellscream. As for the night elves, Tyrande is a selfish one who's as pompous as she is brainless, Malfurion is alright, nothing fancy though, and the rest of the side characters like King Terenas, Antonidas or Uther are just skippable. Medivh is better than the rest but since he's also a tool with cliche lines, I really can't call him a good character.

    So the game didn't age well, the control especially didn't age well, and in general even when it came out the game was still a Blizzard "RTS", tons of clicking, little thinking. Still a 6 because despite the age and repulsive gameplay, I found and find this game to be quite entertaining in its own way, even though I can't play it as "strategy".
    Expand
Metascore
92

Universal acclaim - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 40
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 40
  3. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. Graphically, Warcraft III is breathtaking.
  2. Completely reinvented in glorious 3-D, WCIII spruces up the age-old premise—organize armies and send them into battle against opposing forces—with much-improved graphics and a new pyrotechnic spell-casting system.
  3. May very well be the most beloved PC game of the year.