I've just played an hour or so of WC3. I used to play the game when it came out but never really was a fan of it, so I somehow stopped playing at some point. I remember the game getting rave mag reviews. The MobyGames page is full of positive comments as well. Why is it then that I can't shake the feeling that this game is an overrated POS? (;

Let me explain. First of all, I think Mark Hamill is a horrible actor. I'm not sure how he got his role in Star Wars, but I think it must have been the one lucky coincidence in his life or something like that. The fact that i have to identify myself with this pussy is a real problem for me. The thought that this little boy, who looks like he's hiding under his bed during thunderstorms, is supposed to be a hardened war veteran is utterly ridiculous I think.

There's more serious matters though. The game feels like a b-movie with some bad space flight sequences tacked on. The movies are mostly acted OK-ish (compared to other abominations of that era), though the special effects are laughable, even for the time. The best example is Hobbes (I think he's called) the Kilrathi who looks like he's been made out of the skin of old stuffed animals and lots of plastic. Which he probably is when I think about it. I think the movies would have come out much better if Origin had invested the budget they've blown on "famous" actors into better writing and/or props/effects.

The worst part however is the space flight engine. There's no feeling of mass to the ship, it just jerks from one position to the next and moves much too quickly to be even remotely "believable". Compared to, for example, TIE Fighter, the flying just feels totally wrong. The game looks like a "simulator" but in fact plays like a 2D shoot-em-up with an added dimension. The missions I've played are boring. Press "A", shoot ships, cycle and repeat. I'm sure there's more variation later on but the engine will still be bad.

I'd rather play TIE Fighter or even X-Wing (who needs SVGA graphics anyway (; ) any day. Those games have real depth and shine where it's most important - the gameplay. WC1 and 2 were great games in their time, no question about that. But WC3 is everything I hate about sequels - a shallow, soul-less cash-in vehicle. My impression is that reviewers back then were blinded by the movies and the name (and maybe some nice presents from Origin/EA), and modern reviewers (like the ones on MobyGames) didn't play the game for years and are judging the game not for what it is but for what they remember it to be, or what it should be according to other reviews.

I'm wondering: am I too picky? Did I judge too quickly and too harshly? Am I doing injustice to a masterpiece? It'd be interesting to hear other opinions.