I've seen some negative comments about wc3 from many gamers and some of my own friends think the same.
I felt the same way myself about it (I think all who dislike it admit its a quality game that is good but they just can't get into it), until I got good at it.
You can beat the single player campaign without having to do jack.. i found it very easy even the final level.
but online and even a skirmish game can prove difficult, I think this is because blizzard wanted the single player campaign to fit as many gamers shoes as possible.
i found it brilliant, and after I figured out the gameplay difference and how to master it, I fell in love with the game even more so.
basically i think the gameplay difference is why many gamers turned on this game, the stunning change from building massive armys with many click click clickedly clicks then clicking your way to victory is gone, now it takes the same clicking but a differnet train of thought.
i found it a nice change. im very tired of click fests, i had WC2 down to a science and all it was is knowing the perfect formulas on how to win in each situation with each race then doing it. And when you find someone who knows everything you do, the game honestly lasts forever until the moneys gone, and in some cases that can be a loonnnnggg time. It can be satisfying to win nonetheless but just a little ridiculous.
It felt to me like RTS had gone Quake, or maybe the hardcore gaming crowd had forced it to go that way with the desire to be the best?
I could never forgive War3 for its lame storyline. It had this Romero-ish stagnated feel, typified by that stupid Orc Drummer thing in the introductory cinematic. Now that I think about it, I'd probably not mind the game if it weren't for that lame-o orc drummer.......ugh inexcusably piss-poor on the creativity department.
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.