Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 12 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 12
  2. Negative: 2 out of 12
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. Take "Braveheart," add clerics and magical effects, and you have a semi-nonfictional RTS title with good replayability.
  2. The game play is simple enough but you must definitely be there to control the town building aspect as well as simple control over battles as most of your time will be spent collecting resources and awarding master craftsman awards to your peasants and finding someone to battle.
  3. PC Gamer
    69
    Lacks the polish of a quality title. It's not a bad game - it's just got nothing under it's kilt. [Apr 2003, p.108]
  4. Game Informer
    65
    As forgettable as that time I backed into a parked car and immediately drove away. [Apr 2003, p.95]
  5. Taking out large defensive structures may be easy, but building them from scratch is a chore, especially since the current interface doesn't promote it.
  6. 60
    This admittedly impressive-looking title ultimately proves to be less than run-of-the-mill, in terms of the actual gameplay and battle dynamics.
  7. Once your army is assembled, you'll encounter little or no resistance from the enemy troops, which essentially kills any sense of accomplishment a player might have after successfully finishing a mission.
  8. Historical accuracy doesn't compensate for the deficiencies in its gameplay and graphics... It has some good ideas, but it lacks polish.
  9. While the specifics of the setting might be novel, the gameplay consists of ground that has already been covered by better titles, some many years old and sitting in bargain bins.
  10. Computer Games Magazine
    50
    There isn't anything painfully awful about Highland Warriors, but there's very little to get overly excited about. [May 2003, p.82]
  11. 40
    The wonderful graphics and cut scenes are nice, but it's solid, innovative gameplay -- not cut scenes -- that makes a game great. Highland Warriors sadly misses the mark.
  12. Computer Gaming World
    40
    A chunky mix of features from other titles in a fully 3D bladder that has some merit, but will probably leave most gamers why on earth they should take a bite. [May 2003, p.91]
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 7 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 7
  2. Negative: 2 out of 7
  1. TerokK.
    May 9, 2004
    6
    This game proves 3d itself doesn't prove good graphics but talent does. Technically nothing is wrong but models look awful, so do the This game proves 3d itself doesn't prove good graphics but talent does. Technically nothing is wrong but models look awful, so do the cutscenes. I wonder what the guys over TechTV were smoking praising them. Is everyone so obsessed with technical specifications of the engine that they can't see something UGLY anymore? A soldier speaks and you can see the back of his head when his mouth opens. Awful, awful graphics. Gameplay is average, and the story is actually very nice but all these combined make an average game, if not a bit above that. Full Review »
  2. Jok`RdeMo
    Feb 25, 2003
    5
    I've played 30 min this one. Well, after that I didnt wanted to play anymore. Its gameplay is just too poor to "start me up" (Myth was I've played 30 min this one. Well, after that I didnt wanted to play anymore. Its gameplay is just too poor to "start me up" (Myth was better). And also with my integrated sound I have problems running this game under w98, it runs with no sound problems only under XP. Full Review »