Review: StarCraft II

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Review: StarCraft II

It only took 12 years, but this sequel was worth it.

Read Full Article
 

paketep

New member
Jul 14, 2008
260
0
0
I have a games-more-than-ready PC, and I'm not buying this.

Not until they support LAN, at the very least.

BTW, the title for this should be "Review: StarCraft 2's Single Player"
 

kingcom

New member
Jan 14, 2009
867
0
0
paketep said:
I have a games-more-than-ready PC, and I'm not buying this.

Not until they support LAN, at the very least.
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Its kind of amazing for me to utter devote myself to a game despite the numerous frustrating technical choices surrounding the game (region locking et al).
 

Electric Gel

New member
Mar 26, 2009
85
0
0
Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.

On a positive note it does look like a smashing game, and I can't wait to play it. Just a tad disappointed with how their art directions gone.
 

Nunny

New member
Aug 22, 2009
334
0
0
I enjoyed the game but it did feel like the story is rushed through, not much time spent on each part of the story.

Still a great game, even if it seems to be slowing down the longer i replay it.
 

Arkhangelsk

New member
Mar 1, 2009
7,703
0
0
I can safely say that I love this game. I haven't finished the campaign yet, I'm still so stuck in the multiplayer. But I'll get to it...someday.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
I am loving the game, and, I am still working through the campaign and getting the achievement!

Well worth its 5 Stars!
 

R3dF41c0n

New member
Feb 11, 2009
268
0
0
Just beat the campaign last night and really enjoyed it. Between the campaign, ranked matches (1v1, and team), challenges, custom maps, and achievement hunting this game will last me through to December.
 

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
I beat it but I had some problems with the story. I made a topic about it but I'll re-post here.

OK now I have beaten SC2:WoL story and I have a few questions about the story.

1. OK first off in the story recap during the install it pretty much skips over most of what happened in brood war. Like no mention of the UED. Is Blizzard retconning this, or just ignoring it?

2. So at the end of the story Kerrigan APPARENTLY becomes human again (I did warn about spoilers). But while the rest of her looks human her hair is still the zerg tendrals. So is she all human now, part human, I'm confused?

3. So it would seem that Mengsk is the one who is controlling Tychus, and his mission was to kill Kerrigan. First off earlier in the story it talks about how he is reluctant to do this. Why? until the very end of the game she is a force of destruction and death through out the galaxy, even Raynor says he'd probably have to put her down.

4. Also it's revealed that Mengsk can hear and see what Tychus does. But Tychus is a key player in the missions where you steal the Odin and use it to ultimately reveal Mengsks involvement in the genocide on Tarsonis. So why did Mengsk allow what would be such a terrible blow to his regime continue?

here's a link to the thread if you would prefer to comment there,

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.220785-SPOILERS-Questions-disscussion-about-Star-Craft-2-story-SPOILERS#7444726
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Nov 17, 2020
1,507
0
1
I'm on the last mission now, and expect to finish the campaign tonight. So far it's excellent, though from the storyline I've been able to get so far it really seems like Blizzard is setting up for a World of StarCraft kind of game after the trilogy is over.

Honestly, I don't think the multiplayer can hold up to how great the variety of the campaign was, or at least not until people get used to the scripting system and create some maps that have more complexity than simply "kill the other player" arena matches. After the success of Defense of the Ancients, I would have thought that Blizzard would have released with a bit more game variety in the multiplayer.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
 

chstens

New member
Apr 14, 2009
993
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Review: StarCraft 2

It only took 12 years, but this sequel was worth it.

Read Full Article
I thought you were told to never use that phrase again... Terrible damage...
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Xocrates said:
ionveau said:
Why was nothing said about the DRM?
Because the only DRM worth mentioning is online activation which is par for the course these days?
1 account per CD KEY(you cant even play the game without the account so dont lose it)
no AI without internet
No lan
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
ionveau said:
Get ready for massive DRM,
What massive DRM? Once you activate you can play the whole Single player side of the game offline (which indeed I have)and the only difference is you won't get achievements. You need to be online to play multiplayer, but that is hardly surprising.

ionveau said:
the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3
As someone who played both games, I call bullshit on this.

EDIT:
ionveau said:
1 account per CD KEY(you cant even play the game without the account so dont lose it)
Correction: 1 online account per CD key. You have three offline guest accounts.

ionveau said:
no AI without internet
Lies
 

ThePirateMan

New member
Jul 15, 2009
918
0
0
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
Massive DRM? All you need is to make a simple and free account, type in your CD key, login and play. Then all you need to do is have an active internet connection and you can even play the campaign in offline mode once you've logged atleast one time. (Altho achievements would be disabled)

Your brother, sister, friends or whatever will simply have to get a game and a CD key of their own, it's not such a big freaking deal. There are also some guest card things that you might be able to work something out with.

Copy and pasted maps from WC 3? What the hell are you talking about?

Edit: Misstypes.
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Nov 17, 2020
1,507
0
1
ionveau said:
remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
You can play with them just fine - your LAN just has to be connected to the internet. The game handles multiple connections from the same network without any real issues - it's obvious that Blizzard has learned a lot from the networking code behind World of Warcraft. We have had plenty of matches between people in the office here, all connecting through the same (not so great) internet connection with the same external IP.

ionveau said:
1 account per CD KEY(you cant even play the game without the account so dont lose it)
no AI without internet
Actually, once you have the game installed and activate the game by logging in once, the DRM is quite light. The single-player campaign can be played without logging in, without an internet connection (though obviously not tied to games linked to the account), and without a CD key.

Multiplayer requires an account login, but that requires an internet connection anyway, so it's not a big deal. AI matches (and Challenge maps) can be played offline - I just verified it on my copy.

That's not DRM. That's whining because they don't support a feature you think you want. You've made your point that you don't like that there's no LAN play. You can stop mentioning it in this thread now - you're on the verge of trolling, and we don't like that here.
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
Oh boo hoo, you do not get your precious LAN games, wait a sec. I am not no brain surgeon but can't you just have your friends bring their PCs to your house or vice versa and all sign in to the wireless internet source and THEN play? I know that is what they do in a certain shop in my parts here... and if you are also angry that you have to be online, if you do not have internet then you are either
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internet
LAN -
My computer -> My Friends Computer
Internet
My Computer -> ISP servers -> Blizz server -> ISP servers -> My Friends Computer
But ok, let's say that the server only uses matchmaking (don't know how it works), and it connects you directly to each other after it pairs you up (probably the case, but that creates additional problems)...
What if my router dies, what if my internet connection dies... What if I have a brother and we want to play while we wait for it to get back up?

Not having LAN play creates additional problems, and solves none.
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Ewyx said:
Captain Placeholder said:
Oh boo hoo, you do not get your precious LAN games, wait a sec. I am not no brain surgeon but can't you just have your friends bring their PCs to your house or vice versa and all sign in to the wireless internet source and THEN play? I know that is what they do in a certain shop in my parts here... and if you are also angry that you have to be online, if you do not have internet then you are either
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internet
LAN -
My computer -> My Friends Computer
Internet
My Computer -> ISP servers -> Blizz server -> ISP servers -> My Friends Computer
But ok, let's say that the server only uses matchmaking (don't know how it works), and it connects you directly to each other after it pairs you up (probably the case, but that creates additional problems)...
What if my router dies, what if my internet connection dies... What if I have a brother and we want to play while we wait for it to get back up?

Not having LAN play creates additional problems, and solves none.
Thank you =)
 

Redratson

New member
Jun 23, 2009
376
0
0
I enjoy the game I was average at the first one and I think my skill is increasing. I love the practice league they put in there that was pretty helpful for a noob/part time player like myself. Single player story was, imo, pretty good though

I am a bit sadden that I did not play no zerg.

All in all I was pretty happy I pick up this game :)
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Yeah, the campaign was a lot of fun and there are options for playing skirmishes against the A.I. if you'd like to.
ionveau said:
the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3
Here's the thing, though - they're both RTSes, and they both have campaigns - how different do you expect each mission to be? Warcraft III's single-player had a lot to do with how well you used the abilities of your heroes, whereas there's only one level (that I've played) in Starcraft II that does this (I've only gone through the campaign once); Starcraft II has the in-between mission hub wherein you buy upgrades and hire mercenaries - something I don't remember having a Warcraft III equivalent. Level for level, anything can look the same, but then again, you can look at every game on earth and say "they're all the same, you push buttons until you win."
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Nov 17, 2020
1,507
0
1
Xocrates said:
Virgil said:
straight AI versus matches require an account login
Am I the only person who noticed the "Versus AI" button on the single player menu?
I assumed he was right at first, since I didn't play any versus AI matches myself (and didn't play 'offline' either). I doublechecked though and updated my post. The Challenge maps are also available in single-player, and offline mode doesn't require a CD at all.

I'm actually wondering if the game will require 'reactivation' against the online servers every so often at this point. The DRM is so light once you have the game installed that it may as well not even be there (minus multiplayer, of course).
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
paketep said:
I have a games-more-than-ready PC, and I'm not buying this.

Not until they support LAN, at the very least.

BTW, the title for this should be "Review: StarCraft 2's Single Player"
We've covered SC2's multiplayer many, many times here. Here's all you need to know: It's fantastic, though very, very cutthroat.
 

Bors Mistral

New member
Mar 27, 2009
61
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Looks gorgeous, but I'll only buy the game when the battlechest is released.
Likewise, waiting for the BattleChest. The visuals don't impress me though, and I'd go as far as to call them a bit dated. They do have style though, even if it doesn't resonate with me.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
Haha, what? Copy-pasted from WC3? Son, you best be joking. WC3's mission design is positively archaic compared to SC2.

Online activation is the only DRM worth mentioning. You can play the campaign offline. LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already). This is an office full of hardcore gamers and none of us have LANned in years.

The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.
 

Eruanno

Captain Hammer
Aug 14, 2008
587
0
0
I bought StarCraft 2 on launch day. I CAN'T STOP PLAYING.

Also, I want Heart of the Swarm. Now. Pretty please.
 

Blue Musician

New member
Mar 23, 2010
3,344
0
0
paketep said:
kingcom said:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.
Sure, No LAN sucks, but I would still buy this game, as this is probably one of the few RTS that I have truly enjoyed, along with the other Blizzard games, Warhammer 40K and Rome Total War.
I wouldn't miss this, for me it's the GOTY for me.
 

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
ionveau said:
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
Like the level in WC3 where you have to keep moving your base from a on coming wave of fire or the where race an enemy to see who can hit a resource point the fastest. Or maybe the the one where you chase down enemy transports. Perhaps the one where you gather resources while dodging rising and falling tides of lava. Thoughs were all in WC3 right?

All kidding aside though, I could go on. Yes some of the levels are similar to WC3 but there is only so much you can do with an RTS.

Point 2, massive DRM? You only have to sign up once and then it's done. what DRM is less than that. DRM yes but rather slight, really undeserving of the massive label.

And lan, well ok I guess technically no but you can set matches up on the internet. I don't see why you cant play against friends/relatives ect. Perhaps if one of your internet is bad it may be a problem, but from what you said it would be impossible to play them at all which is false.

And Ironically the story was the only thing I had a problem with (see post above).
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
[this post contains spoilers]

No doubt, StarCraft 2 is an excellent, very polished game. I can't help being a little disappointed by the campaign though.

There's no sense of urgency or accomplishment as in the first game. Most of the time it's about getting funds for the revolution. So let's steal some alien artifacts here, and do some contract work there, and yeah, we want to take down Mensk but let's do this and that too... there seems to be a lack of focus.

So then Mensk has been dealt a blow and suddenly we make buddies with his son and his greatest general and assaulting the Zerg is the most important thing ever. WTF? I just humiliated the emperor infront of the whole galaxy and his greatest generals decide it's okay to work with me now in order to save sweetheart Kerrigan and destroy the Zerg (yet again)? That happened way too fast. And it's just weird.

The other weird thing is how I spend so much time collecting artifacts to sell to this research organization but then for some reason I keep it and use it to defeat the Zerg and "heal" Kerrigan. Well, what a coincidence that that turned out to be so useful to me. All this time I thought we were just going to sell that stuff for $$$.

I very much enjoyed the "Wing Commander" style intermissions, but the news program is so cheesy and exagerrated in its support for Mensk that I think it hurts the overall quality. Then there are "sub-plots" that get started but don't quite follow through. Tosh says something about a traitor on board. I never did find out who that was. Who is in control of Tychus "kill switch"? I still don't know. Also Tychus is constantly portrayed as a destabilizing factor, but it never quite follows through with that plot line and he simply fights on your side up until the end as if everything is just dandy. The character development especially with Tychus seems very fuzzy and ambivalent at times.

The missions offer great variety but I missed the StarCraft 1 type missions where you can gradually build up your base and progressively annihilate the opposition. Most of the time you're under time pressure, chasing down trains, avoiding getting burned by the sun, saving your workers from melting in lava, running from a huge Monsterzerg, racing with Kerrigan to get to some data, building up defences before a Zerg attack... Sometimes I wished I could have taken a little time to check out the special abilities of my units or actually enjoy the great 3D graphics without needing to check out some kind of timer every 5 seconds. A few more traditional missions would have been in order.

But these are all "minor" annoyances considering the overall high quality of the game. I guess I'm also scrutinizing StarCraft 2 alot more than other games, due to the immense expectations involved.
 

Zarthek

New member
Apr 12, 2009
533
0
0
Bors Mistral said:
DeadlyYellow said:
Looks gorgeous, but I'll only buy the game when the battlechest is released.
Likewise, waiting for the BattleChest. The visuals don't impress me though, and I'd go as far as to call them a bit dated. They do have style though, even if it doesn't resonate with me.
I may be wrong but I don't think they were topped out for the review video, Some sections of the graphics were a little off, but then again I'm playing it on a computer that can just barely go over the bare minimum of graphics so....
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
I doubt they were working on it for 12 years and it certainly wasn't worth the wait. The game is roughly the same as the original since they kept so many of the original units and characters. I mean, the new stuff is interesting, but for someone who was still playing the original till it's sequal, it got old really quick.

Also, the dialogue through the cinematics were so cliche' it hurt, it made me cringe. I've played all the previous Blizzard games and they were never this bad.

This is the first time Blizzard has disappointed me. Oh well, no ones perfect. Still waiting for Diablo 3.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Ewyx said:
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internet
LAN -
My computer -> My Friends Computer
Internet
My Computer -> ISP servers -> Blizz server -> ISP servers -> My Friends Computer
But ok, let's say that the server only uses matchmaking (don't know how it works), and it connects you directly to each other after it pairs you up (probably the case, but that creates additional problems)...
What if my router dies, what if my internet connection dies... What if I have a brother and we want to play while we wait for it to get back up?

Not having LAN play creates additional problems, and solves none.
Hm. I still do not see a big deal. You can still play with your friends by inviting them to custom games. You can still play with them in the same household and/or area. You just both have to be online and I still do not see why the internet would be down for a very long time or very frequently. I mean I live in the country and have very bad internet connectivity and yet that still does not stop me. Also if I live in a little tiny town in the middle of nowhere and my internet does not go down very frequently and yours does, it may be time to get a new ISP.

The point I am trying to make is, you can still play online and I doubt that you will lose internet frequently that will cause you to be unable to play. And if you are, try making or planning to build orders or study your old one. Still it sounds like you lose internet quite frequently and that not having LAN will be a huge downfall to playing. It is not, and if you have bad internet try figuring out how to fix it or call the company.

I do see your point though, however your making it sound much worse than what it is. As John Funk said, LAN is outdated Tech, it is going obsolete if not already.
 

BlueInkAlchemist

Ridiculously Awesome
Jun 4, 2008
2,231
0
0
If I had $60 US to spare on a game instead of needing to hold onto it so I can afford to feed myself, I'd probably have this game already.
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,145
0
0
Nice little reference at the end there :D

I see Blizzard has, once again, bestowed some wonderfully creative cheat codes on us.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
So then Mensk has been dealt a blow and suddenly we make buddies with his son and his greatest general and assaulting the Zerg is the most important thing ever. WTF? I just humiliated the emperor infront of the whole galaxy and his greatest generals decide it's okay to work with me now in order to save sweetheart Kerrigan and destroy the Zerg (yet again)? That happened way too fast. And it's just weird.
You had been working for Mengsk son since the start of the campaign, you just didn't know it. In the same way that Mengsk didn't know what his son was up to. Raynor also makes it quite clear why he's tagging along (not only to save Kerrigan, but because there's no point in beating mengsk if then the zerg just kill them all). And the general is only there because of Valerian, and before Raynor saves his ass he makes it quite clear he doesn't like having Raynor around.

I might agree on the "way too fast", but it certainly wasn't a WTF moment.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
1st: Yes the game is well worth it for the campaign alone, they definately didn't skimp out on the single player for multiplayer. If you enjoyed the original then your definately going to want to add this to your collection.

and

2nd: Really? REALLY? Can we just drop the whining and crying about DRM already, it's not going anywhere. Those of you who are against it have reason to fear it, which means you were doing something illegal with the software in the first place and essentially created this problem for yourselves.
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Nov 17, 2020
1,507
0
1
Tiamat666 said:
Then there are "sub-plots" that get started but don't quite follow through. Tosh says something about a traitor on board. I never did find out who that was. Who is in control of Tychus "kill switch"? I still don't know. Also Tychus is constantly portrayed as a destabilizing factor, but it never quite follows through with that plot line and he simply fights on your side up until the end as if everything is just dandy. The character development especially with Tychus seems very fuzzy and ambivalent at times.
My guess is that those are hooks for the future games in the trilogy. This is just The Fellowship of the Ring - some questions likely don't get answered until later on.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
Xocrates said:
I might agree on the "way too fast", but it certainly wasn't a WTF moment.
Maybe I need a second playthrough to fully grasp everything that was going on there. It could be that I missed some details on the way because I was too enthusiastic about making progress. But it certainly felt very WTF to me when I found Raynor on board of the Korhal starship just after the mayhem I caused in the capital.
 

BioTox

New member
Nov 19, 2009
91
0
0
I finished the campaign last night, had to slow down because the GF was at the house, and it was definitely worth my $60. I kind of expected the ending but only from the clues in the campaign. I probably would of played the campaign alone in a couple days if I didn't have to work or log off. There was enough variety in the missions for me to stay interested. The missions where you only have a couple guys are the best, in my opinion.

Who cares if you have a DRM. Don't buy the game or buy the game and suck it up. That's really the only choice you have in the matter. IDK if you can't install/play a million copies on your PC and all of your friends. Make them buy their own copy. You can't play a LAN game? Connect to the net and join your friends. It's not that hard.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,916
0
0
Aside from the ending of the game being a huge let down for me, I really enjoyed the Starcraft 2 campaign. Blizzard put tons of effort into it. I love all of the little details that add flavor to the setting. They're a nice addition for me since I love to learn everything I can about the setting, technology, creatures, and factions whenever a game interests me. All of the missions are surprisingly varied, having their own unique hazards and objectives I didn't expect Blizzard to implement. I expect the campaign to be highly similar to the Starcraft campaign. Instead, it was very different (in a good way).

And while the animated cutscenes are (usually) impressive, I still prefer it when games tell the story through the gameplay. Which is why my favorite mission in the game was the last Protoss one. It has far more impact because you're the one in control, rather than watching characters in a cutscene.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.
Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.
I agree that the story is very chiché. I think Blizzard should tone done the "Epicness" of their games and instead create an intriguing story by good and creative writing. Seriously, you can only save the universe this many times before it starts getting old. And the *Craft type games have had more of their share of prophecies and artifacts. I remember my soul hurting a little when they started talking of prophecies and artifacts and the 3rd or 4th impending Zerg apocalypse... but I didn't let in ruin the otherwise great experience.

StarCraft 2 is not an "average" game. Perhaps it has "standard" game mechanics, as all RTS games do. But then it is made so much richer by the strategic choices you have to do between missions and the story presentation. I've also never played an RTS with "dynamic mission elements" before, such as rising lava, nighttime zombie raids or burning planet surfaces.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,916
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
Based on the ending, it seems like Mengsk was in control of the kill switch for Tychus. Which to me makes no sense. If Mengsk could communicate with Tychus and control his suits functions, why the hell didn't he stop Tychus from plowing through his army in the Odin!?
 

gmfaux

New member
Apr 20, 2010
15
0
0
The first line of this review tells me you pay too much attention to Internet denizens.
Blizzard spent >10 years working on this game, of course it's a full game.

Original? No. See Warhammer 40000.
Modern? In graphics only. In terms of gameplay this game fits better in 1999 than 2010. They've pretty much ignored everything that's happened in the RTS genre since SC1.

Nostalgic? Yes.
A good primer for the RTS genre? Yes.
Well-crafted? Yes. The Blizzard polish is in full effect.
Compelling story? That depends on how much you like sci-fi space opera. A plot synopsis of SC1 is a pre-requisite for anyone new to the series to get full enjoyment out of the story.

Bottom line: It's amazing how they've managed to give such a classic game a modern look and feel. Any fan of space opera or SC1 should purchase. Also a great game for someone wanting to learn the fundamentals of RTS. Blizzard played it exceptionally safe with this game.

Your review was a little too starry-eyed for my taste.
 

Blue_vision

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.
Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.
There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
No LAN is a problem, and you can easily find it out by trying any of the different custom maps (brawler, space invaders etc). The delay on every single command is borderline unbearable.
 

Guyovick

New member
Nov 5, 2009
12
0
0
chstens said:
Greg Tito said:
Review: StarCraft 2
I thought you were told to never use that phrase again... Terrible damage...
I too would also like to add my disgust of that phrase, even though it is used in jest. [a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrible"]Terrible[/a] could either mean severe or it could mean extremely bad. That was a terrible storm or that was terrible coffee. The context is supposed to disambiguate which is meant. While I can eventually disambiguate what is meant, my first take is always the 'terrible coffee' meaning. This phrase is used a couple of times in the game.

There are other elements of the writing that aren't up to par.
I completed the mission that broadcasted the incriminating audio file and was treated to a cutscene of Raynor laughing about how they finally were able to take down the emperor of the Dominion. In the very next mission I team up with the emperor's son to defeat the Zerg and my ship's crew start to riot because they were afraid I was going to side with the Dominion.

We just started the rebellion against the Dominion! How could anyone possibly believe I was siding with the Dominion?

These and other inconsistencies in the writing led me to believe that Blizzard didn't have any professional writers who worked on Starcraft II. It seems like Blizzard let their programmers write everything (and then do the voice acting).

Don't get me wrong, the actual campaign gameplay is really good. It is just the plot, the writing and the voice acting that I can't stand.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Blue_vision said:
Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
The game comes with single player challenges specifically designed to teach you some core multiplayer tactics and help you improve your micro, as well as having some fairly decent skirmish AI.

Beyond that, the multiplayer has a practice league with newbie-friendly maps to help you come to grips with the game. Once you're ready for some real competition you'll have 5 placement matched designed to determine your level of skill which the matchmaking will use to try and find suitable opponents. It also saves the replays of all your games, including a bunch of info such how fast players were gathering money, so you can study them and help you improve.

And while for some stupid reason, the matchmaking seems to be placing me against players above my league a lot lately, it still does a fairly good job in ensuring they're not too much above you.

In short, the game does everything it can to ease new players into multiplayer, including a fairly solid skill based matchmaking system.
 

Blue_vision

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
0
Xocrates said:
n short, the game does everything it can to ease new players into multiplayer, including a fairly solid skill based matchmaking system.
Horray! Thanks for the insight :)
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
Those dynamic mission elements are nothing but a script that has no impact on the general experience. Sure, if you'd have random eruptions, a night-day cycle and the ability to set yer opponents lawn on fire and theses affected gameplay I'd give them points for that but now they're just purrty effects.
Not all RTS games are standard, Warhammer is the finest example of this.
It does affect the "general experience" if your base is engulfed in flames because you didn't evacuate soon enough, your workers are melting in lava because you didn't move them to higher ground or your troops are ripped to shredds by a legion of zombies because they were still out of base when the night fell in.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
John Funk said:
Cristian Capatana said:
...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.
Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.
There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.
...and learn to take a chance once in a while! They have 3 stories and they're beating them to death with the "sameold" stick.

Btw, some argument to back up that "not remotely average" claim would be interesting to have. :)
Who's discussing story? The story in StarCraft is cheesy B-movie space opera, the same as it's always been. Nobody expects great story from Chris Metzen, they expect a popcorn flick which is exactly what we got.

The mission design is exceptional. The gameplay manages to be simultaneously StarCraft and yet NOT StarCraft thanks to seemingly-small design elements and changes that go a huge way towards how the game plays out. It's a traditional RTS because that's what Blizzard was intending to design, and because elements that work great in Relic games like CoH or DoW (namely, squad mechanics and cover) would have gone completely against what they were trying to do.

The mission and level design is superb; there are almost 30 missions that pretty much never repeat a central 'gimmick,' the entire thing is well-polished and though the story/dialogue are cheesy at best it's well told, with little on-ship interactions and conversations doing a surprisingly good job at fleshing out the world and characters surrounding what's going on.

Blizzard was trying to make a sequel to StarCraft, and they were trying to make a traditional RTS built around fast movements, fast thinking, and precise control. That is exactly what they have done, and they have done so exceptionally well. It isn't SupCom or DoW or Total Annihilation or Total War; it's StarCraft. And that's what it SHOULD be.
 

Electric Gel

New member
Mar 26, 2009
85
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
paketep said:
kingcom said:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.
Oh boo hoo, you do not get your precious LAN games, wait a sec. I am not no brain surgeon but can't you just have your friends bring their PCs to your house or vice versa and all sign in to the wireless internet source and THEN play? I know that is what they do in a certain shop in my parts here... and if you are also angry that you have to be online, if you do not have internet then you are either

A.) Poor
B.) To lazy to have someone install it.

Anyways, if you picked up SC2 high chances you planned on playing multiplayer and why would you not have your computer hooked up to the internet damn near 24/7 these days? Haha, sorry if the post seemed rude, I just kinda found it funny.

Electric Gel said:
Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.

On a positive note it does look like a smashing game, and I can't wait to play it. Just a tad disappointed with how their art directions gone.
Nah, I believe that was what they imagined her since the beginning. I am not too sure however. They do have a statue of her in their offices and it looks just like what she looks like now. I do not know how new that it is but if it has been their for a number of years then it could be the original design but they could not pull it off do to the graphics of the time.
If that's how they imagined her originally then I'm sorely disappointed. One of the things I liked about the original Starcraft was the characters uniqueness, especially compared to a lot of other games where they pander to this idealistic notion of the perfect person. Jim Rayner wasn't handsome, he was an average looking guy with a big personality. Now he's this grizzled anti hero. Kerrigan looked more like a mature woman, and less like an American cheerleader in futuristic armour.

Although I must admit that I've not played the game yet, and I'm completely going of what I've seen in reviews and previews. Some of the characters do look like they've kept a tad of that Starcraft charm, even if the main protagonists easily fit into some hackneyed, overdone computer game goliath man/sexy girl character design.
 

werekitsune

New member
Oct 18, 2009
38
0
0
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
 

Snarky

Chirp-Chirp
Jul 27, 2010
29
0
0
Starcraft 2 was advertised a lot here, I wasn't expecting fair and balanced, but having bought the game and played it, I wasn't expecting 5 stars, maybe 4 or 4.5 though I guess it IS worth the 60$ price tag, or 99$ in my case. After playing the campaign: I was disappointed by the multiplayer, it just seems much less fun. It seems boring, in the same way that I find Counter-Strike boring, it's more about twitch game play and rapid control of the mouse then it is tactics. While you can hone your about to performs hundreds of actions per minute, but why bother? I don't know, it's just not my cup of tea, I still prefer Supreme Commander 1 as multiplayer seem more like a sandbox war than an arena match.

Also, I had a LAN party last weekend, and Starcraft 2 was one of the games of choice, the lack of dedicated LAN mode didn't seem to be a problem, the game doesn't seem to be taxing on connections, even with 3 people with 3 accounts on one broadband line. The AI is hard and I appreciate the fact that it scouts you, and it doesn't seem to cheat.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
M'kay, you're just describing what the game is and is not and not why it's supposed to be better than most other "traditional" RTS games. From what I've experienced so far, adding a few new units and tinkering with the old does not make a game "the best" it just makes it better than the original and considering that in the last 10 years we've seen a crapton of traditional RTS games that started with the starcraft formula and improved on it how can we make the affirmation "SCII rullz!"? On the other hand we can safely say it's an average game based on the plethora of games that didn't take 10 years to make, have been developed by studios with far less resources, had the balls to try something new here and there but use the same general mechanics as SCII.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. It's the best because it's very well balanced, very engaging and exciting to pick up and play, the breakneck pace means that it's an intense experience from the very moment you start the game because those first 50 minerals could make or break you down the line.

Other games added things to the StarCraft formula, yes. That does not mean they were *improving* it, much in the same way that adding ketchup to a sundae does not mean you're improving it, and much in the same way that an orange is not an improved apple because it has a peel.

There is not a single continuum of RTS design. Just because DoW and CoH have cover systems and squad mechanics does not mean that StarCraft II needs to have cover systems and squad mechanics because that bogs the game down and gets in the way of what the developers were trying to make.

So far your argument just seems to be "Wah, it didn't try anything new." That does not make it an average game, it just makes it an game that didn't innovate. Which is never what they were trying to do in the first place.
 

chaos order

New member
Jan 27, 2010
764
0
0
the ONLY reason i want this game is because of the story, i LOVED the story in the first SC and i NEED to see what happend in the second, unfortunately i am horrible at RTS's. and SC2 looks eve more brutal and unforgiving than SC1 :(
 

Sartan0

New member
Apr 5, 2010
538
0
0
werekitsune said:
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
There is a decent write up in the manual that will bring you up to speed on the story. As for game play the game does a great job of teaching you how to play. For multi-player don't miss the challenge modes and skirmish mode.
 

Richard Allen

New member
Mar 16, 2010
175
0
0
werekitsune said:
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
If you don't mind a few plot holes (like exactly how kerrigan become the queen of blades, they gloss over it briefly and explain but not in-depth) then I would pick it up if resource based fast action RTS is something you like. In the campaign normal mode there were not any points where I felt rushed to the point that I sent my units into a situation I didn't think they could handle but I was also playing on the normal difficulty level so I could get into multi-player asap.

That being said the single player has some great new "gimmicks" and I say that in quotes because while not game changing or industry changing, they make every single map in the single player campaign feel unique.

Mulit-player is where it's at for the most of us however (the campaign can be beaten in about 16 hours if you blast through it, me being a veteran of the game but exploring a bit am at 23-24 ish) and this will make or break it for you I think if your interested in playing the game for more then a few weeks or w/e pace you play it at. It's extremely competitive, on the ladder, many games are over in about 7 minutes (don't think I've had one longer then 20). It's breakneck speed (high level competitors are usually judged a bit based on actions per minute which is in the 250-350 range for sc gods), and good chunk is bases on resource management.

Here's the other thing though, the map editor is just about the most powerful one to date. You can litterally turn a map in to a first person shooter experience if you want to so I would expect some very clever maps and game modes once the community gets involved.

MegaSlaan said:
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
1st: Yes the game is well worth it for the campaign alone, they definately didn't skimp out on the single player for multiplayer. If you enjoyed the original then your definately going to want to add this to your collection.

and

2nd: Really? REALLY? Can we just drop the whining and crying about DRM already, it's not going anywhere. Those of you who are against it have reason to fear it, which means you were doing something illegal with the software in the first place and essentially created this problem for yourselves.
REALLY REALLY (seewhatIdidthere)? You going to pull that same crap about drm. I've got a finger to show you. I bought the game just like I buy every other game. I understand lack of lan, I hate it, it goes against what Blizz has done in the past (spawning was soooo nice) but in all reality there are very few situations that this will affect people but there are some. I regularly play ad-hoc games while traveling and there are plenty of times where peoples internet goes out and are looking for something to do. Just because my situation is different then yours and you can't possibly conceive a situation where you might not have internet doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Maybe you shouldn't lay down blanket statements like your all thieves when I can guarantee I have supported the video game industry since the beginning and have been buying blizzard games since before they were blizzard.
 

GoGo_Boy

New member
May 12, 2010
218
0
0
Lol at the "terrible, terrible damage" :)

And I actually laughed quite a bit at that one point in the campaign where it came up. Oh god I really didn't expect it and then... so funny. :D

For those who actually don't know about "terrible, terrible damage". It's a Battle Report insider regarding Dustin Browders (Lead Designer) often repeating that phrase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsWhpf7D_EQ (haha so nice)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZlcgOzi_E

Ah found the campaign scene :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8bieEfkoOs
 

ninjajoeman

New member
Mar 13, 2009
934
0
0
Nunny said:
I enjoyed the game but it did feel like the story is rushed through, not much time spent on each part of the story.

Still a great game, even if it seems to be slowing down the longer i replay it.
rushed you say...
well not to say zerg rush but how was this game rushed at all?
 

Richard Allen

New member
Mar 16, 2010
175
0
0
Blue_vision said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
Depending on how bad you are you will probably loose all 5 of your placement matches and maybe a few more while it gets a feel for how good you are. Unless you are the worst player on earth the match making system will eventually find a good set of people for you to play with at or near your level. They had to detune it a bit during beta because every single match became a fight for your life match which was pretty intense during a marathon session. Now it will give you a good mix of easy matches, hard matches that you probably can't win (but are very good to watch the replays and learn from), and some that take every ounce of attention and skill you got but make you love the win all that much more. There is a 7 hour free trial with every game, if you can pick up one and do a marathon session of multi-player, and see how you feel at the end. I'm sure you it will find some good opponents for you.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
chaos order said:
the ONLY reason i want this game is because of the story, i LOVED the story in the first SC and i NEED to see what happend in the second, unfortunately i am horrible at RTS's. and SC2 looks eve more brutal and unforgiving than SC1 :(
The story might disappoint you, but I found SC2 to be alot easier than SC1. Also, you can set the difficuilty to easy, so I wouldn't worry about that.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
i absolutely adore this game! and dammit for that secret mission! have to do the campaign again! >.<
 

ark123

New member
Feb 19, 2009
485
0
0
If you have a computer, it should have SC2 in it.
I'm sure Blizzard is crying their eyes out the "OMG no chat! No lan!" crowd isn't throwing their 60 bucks on top of the humongous pile of money they already made from this.
Who cares about LAN support, just log into your battle.net account and play from anywhere.
 

Richard Allen

New member
Mar 16, 2010
175
0
0
MegaSlaan said:
Richard Allen said:
werekitsune said:
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
If you don't mind a few plot holes (like exactly how kerrigan become the queen of blades, they gloss over it briefly and explain but not in-depth) then I would pick it up if resource based fast action RTS is something you like. In the campaign normal mode there were not any points where I felt rushed to the point that I sent my units into a situation I didn't think they could handle but I was also playing on the normal difficulty level so I could get into multi-player asap.

That being said the single player has some great new "gimmicks" and I say that in quotes because while not game changing or industry changing, they make every single map in the single player campaign feel unique.

Mulit-player is where it's at for the most of us however (the campaign can be beaten in about 16 hours if you blast through it, me being a veteran of the game but exploring a bit am at 23-24 ish) and this will make or break it for you I think if your interested in playing the game for more then a few weeks or w/e pace you play it at. It's extremely competitive, on the ladder, many games are over in about 7 minutes (don't think I've had one longer then 20). It's breakneck speed (high level competitors are usually judged a bit based on actions per minute which is in the 250-350 range for sc gods), and good chunk is bases on resource management.

Here's the other thing though, the map editor is just about the most powerful one to date. You can litterally turn a map in to a first person shooter experience if you want to so I would expect some very clever maps and game modes once the community gets involved.

MegaSlaan said:
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
1st: Yes the game is well worth it for the campaign alone, they definately didn't skimp out on the single player for multiplayer. If you enjoyed the original then your definately going to want to add this to your collection.

and

2nd: Really? REALLY? Can we just drop the whining and crying about DRM already, it's not going anywhere. Those of you who are against it have reason to fear it, which means you were doing something illegal with the software in the first place and essentially created this problem for yourselves.
REALLY REALLY (seewhatIdidthere)? You going to pull that same crap about drm. I've got a finger to show you. I bought the game just like I buy every other game. I understand lack of lan, I hate it, it goes against what Blizz has done in the past (spawning was soooo nice) but in all reality there are very few situations that this will affect people but there are some. I regularly play ad-hoc games while traveling and there are plenty of times where peoples internet goes out and are looking for something to do. Just because my situation is different then yours and you can't possibly conceive a situation where you might not have internet doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Maybe you shouldn't lay down blanket statements like your all thieves when I can guarantee I have supported the video game industry since the beginning and have been buying blizzard games since before they were blizzard.
Ok here's a bag of ice for your puss puss and Steel Magnolias for you to cry over. Oh and a tampon because you are one massively whiney ****.
Yes because I am sick of being called thief because I want to play on a lan that makes me a whiny c***. FWIW I could give a crap what you think of me but you follow the same line of thought as some of the greats like Kotick who feel that by punishing the people who actually buy the game while doing zilch about piracy is a good idea. The day every single one of your games has an always on internet connection and every time your internet has a hicup and you get dropped to your last save remember this post, it's people like you who are causing it. Also if your just going to drop obscenities and not even make an argument your pretty worthless as a commenter and I would ask you to troll somewhere else, this is one of the better communities and I think most of us would rather have you out of here.
 

ark123

New member
Feb 19, 2009
485
0
0
Richard Allen said:
Blue_vision said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
Depending on how bad you are you will probably loose all 5 of your placement matches and maybe a few more while it gets a feel for how good you are. Unless you are the worst player on earth the match making system will eventually find a good set of people for you to play with at or near your level. They had to detune it a bit during beta because every single match became a fight for your life match which was pretty intense during a marathon session. Now it will give you a good mix of easy matches, hard matches that you probably can't win (but are very good to watch the replays and learn from), and some that take every ounce of attention and skill you got but make you love the win all that much more. There is a 7 hour free trial with every game, if you can pick up one and do a marathon session of multi-player, and see how you feel at the end. I'm sure you it will find some good opponents for you.
If you play through the campaign and do the challenges I personally guarantee you will not lose all 5 placement matches.
 

Richard Allen

New member
Mar 16, 2010
175
0
0
ark123 said:
Richard Allen said:
Blue_vision said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
Depending on how bad you are you will probably loose all 5 of your placement matches and maybe a few more while it gets a feel for how good you are. Unless you are the worst player on earth the match making system will eventually find a good set of people for you to play with at or near your level. They had to detune it a bit during beta because every single match became a fight for your life match which was pretty intense during a marathon session. Now it will give you a good mix of easy matches, hard matches that you probably can't win (but are very good to watch the replays and learn from), and some that take every ounce of attention and skill you got but make you love the win all that much more. There is a 7 hour free trial with every game, if you can pick up one and do a marathon session of multi-player, and see how you feel at the end. I'm sure you it will find some good opponents for you.
If you play through the campaign and do the challenges I personally guarantee you will not lose all 5 placement matches.
More then likely not but during beta (smaller pool and I would guess a more difficult pool) I had a buddy lose his first 8 matches, he's pretty bad though. My only point was that if that is the case and you really are that bad don't give up. The match making system will find a good level of play for you.
 

JaredXE

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,378
0
0
"Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."


But it's not all of Starcraft II....I'm confused. Did Blizzard package all three stories at the last minute?
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I didn't think the story was very good. I'll explain

1) It's LOADED with tropes.
From your standards "Why won't you die!" to "You haven't seen the last of me!" type bullshit lines we hear over and over and over.

2) It's got a lot of fluff
In the review he mentions how the missions work, one person gives you a mission and it's all sort of related to their story arc. The thing is, I don't fucking care about Tosh or my science officer. They're poorly developed I have little reason to feel emotion for them. Not to mention, their missions simply culminate to "Uh... Let's do this now!" There is little relation to their past missions storywise and while I found the MAIN story arc to be good, the side characters take up like 4/5ths of the game. That's WAY too much.

3) The story is just glued together
To me it just feels like a mission select screen with a bunch of cut scenes in between. The cut scenes often have little relation to what happened in the previous mission, and often just seem like they're there because they can be. There is no flow to the story. The narrative is jerky and seems entirely patched together. If I could summarize SC2 very briefly I would just say it's "Stuff happening".

That's about all I can summarize it as. Oh this character wants me to do this now for some random and contrived reason, alright.

4) Where am I?
What are the zerg and protoss doing while I'm just floating around in my ship? Why is Raynor so happy to just fuck around on various planets while the zerg gain ground every minute and Mengsk destroys earth? And lastly - this is a problem I find with a lot of anime as well - I want a sense of space.

Where the fuck am I? Where are the planets I'm going to? How long does it take to get there? What am I orbiting? How close are the Zerg and Protoss? What are they doing right now? What is mengsk up to? When I'm on a mission, why does it appear NOTHING else happens? The Zerg do not move, the Protoss do not give a shit and Mengsk is just chilling out.

IMO the story could be told WAY better.
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
0
0
Eruanno said:
I bought StarCraft 2 on launch day. I CAN'T STOP PLAYING.

Also, I want Heart of the Swarm. Now. Pretty please.
Yes, yessity yes. I've been working on grabbing up achievements and playing it on hard mode for a couple of days now. As much as I enjoyed being able to take my time and build up bigger forces on Normal mode, Hard mode is much more of a challenge, and is very rewarding.

As for Heart of the Swarm, I hope they post a release date at BlizzCon.
 

Sillyiggy

New member
Jun 12, 2008
55
0
0
Virgil said:
I'm on the last mission now, and expect to finish the campaign tonight. So far it's excellent, though from the storyline I've been able to get so far it really seems like Blizzard is setting up for a World of StarCraft kind of game after the trilogy is over.

Honestly, I don't think the multiplayer can hold up to how great the variety of the campaign was, or at least not until people get used to the scripting system and create some maps that have more complexity than simply "kill the other player" arena matches. After the success of Defense of the Ancients, I would have thought that Blizzard would have released with a bit more game variety in the multiplayer.
It may be a long time coming. Blizzard's publishing system and popularity engine are likely to keep the same 50 "kill the other player" arena marches up for years. Unless you plan on 'parties' with friends to play custom maps you aren't going to be enjoying any creative content for a while.

The issue is Blizzard has decided to control everything this round, and what made the original live so long in custom content was the very fact that so little was controlled. Personally I am going to play through my friends single player campaign at her house then wait for the necessary changes to BNet 2.0 / Blizzard philosophy to take place before I make a purchase.

LAN support isn't a must (to me but it is to others, anyway) but it is a good example of their totalitarian approach with the sequel and how it is hurting the long-term success of the game.
 

Aptspire

New member
Mar 13, 2008
2,064
0
0
This game lives up so much to its reputation. I'm glad Greg noticed that as well :D
 

robinhood36

Burnt Bacon Bits
Apr 13, 2009
13
0
0
I love how people are complaining about no lan and having only part 1 of 3 for the story.

Would you have enjoyed the story more if it was 26 missions split between all 3 races? I sure wouldn't and I still enjoy the original game/expac. I loved getting all of the terrans story for this game, it felt very well done. Even if there was some cliche, it was very familiar and still different with a new spin on the game.

No Lan is such a laughable argument. Why do you want a feature that was available because internet was garbage 12 years ago? That is the only reason there was lan. You have BNET now. I had 5 people over at my house with a 3mbit internet service and no one lagged at all (4vsAI, one played league)

I love stories in games. Before this I played DoW2 and Chaos rising, I love the story there. The idea you can upgrade and load out different squads. This game is pretty close to that idea. The idea you get monies and spend monies on upgrades.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
robinhood36 said:
I love how people are complaining about no lan and having only part 1 of 3 for the story.

Would you have enjoyed the story more if it was 26 missions split between all 3 races? I sure wouldn't and I still enjoy the original game/expac. I loved getting all of the terrans story for this game, it felt very well done. Even if there was some cliche, it was very familiar and still different with a new spin on the game.

No Lan is such a laughable argument. Why do you want a feature that was available because internet was garbage 12 years ago? That is the only reason there was lan. You have BNET now. I had 5 people over at my house with a 3mbit internet service and no one lagged at all (4vsAI, one played league)

I love stories in games. Before this I played DoW2 and Chaos rising, I love the story there. The idea you can upgrade and load out different squads. This game is pretty close to that idea. The idea you get monies and spend monies on upgrades.
Then what are we to do for the 500 man tournaments which take place in rented out arenas where there is no internet connection without LAN?

Sure you and a handful of friends can play on B-Net, but for the tournament scene no LAN is a death sentence.
 

robinhood36

Burnt Bacon Bits
Apr 13, 2009
13
0
0
AC10 said:
robinhood36 said:
Then what are we to do for the 500 man tournaments which take place in rented out arenas where there is no internet connection without LAN?

Sure you and a handful of friends can play on B-Net, but for the tournament scene no LAN is a death sentence.
Move the locale, get your internets from somewhere. The tourney needs to evolve just as the game has now.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Captain Placeholder said:
No LAN is a problem, and you can easily find it out by trying any of the different custom maps (brawler, space invaders etc). The delay on every single command is borderline unbearable.
I have no delay, I even measured up with the LAN and it works just the same to me. Looks like you need a new computer or get a new ISP :p

Electric Gel said:
If that's how they imagined her originally then I'm sorely disappointed. One of the things I liked about the original Starcraft was the characters uniqueness, especially compared to a lot of other games where they pander to this idealistic notion of the perfect person. Jim Rayner wasn't handsome, he was an average looking guy with a big personality. Now he's this grizzled anti hero. Kerrigan looked more like a mature woman, and less like an American cheerleader in futuristic armour.

Although I must admit that I've not played the game yet, and I'm completely going of what I've seen in reviews and previews. Some of the characters do look like they've kept a tad of that Starcraft charm, even if the main protagonists easily fit into some hackneyed, overdone computer game goliath man/sexy girl character design.
I will admit that Jim Raynor looks really different. However Kerrigan still looks the same to me... just with better graphics :/ But of course I have been known to be blind hehe

AC10 said:
I think John Funk stated it quite planely on Page 2. The entire story is a basic B-movie type stuff. And quite frankly I do not care. I love playing/watching a B-movie every now and again! If I wanted a game with story I would go play Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Also to me Gameplay > Story. I mean the game could have a shit story yet awesome gameplay. A great example of this is Bayonetta, excellent gameplay yet the story was confusing, stupid and just shitty IMO. I am sure people will dispute that, but still I am just trying to make a point.

StarCrafts story has always been a B-Movie, just enjoy it and do not pick at it :D
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
ciortas1 said:
Captain Placeholder said:
No LAN is a problem, and you can easily find it out by trying any of the different custom maps (brawler, space invaders etc). The delay on every single command is borderline unbearable.
I have no delay, I even measured up with the LAN and it works just the same to me. Looks like you need a new computer or get a new ISP :p
I specifically said certain custom maps. Melee maps are running at around 100 ms for me.
 

Catalyst6

Dapper Fellow
Apr 21, 2010
1,362
0
0
paketep said:
kingcom said:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.
Oh please. Yes, there are *limited* applications for LAN support, but everyone's just being pissy because they can't pirate the game. That's pretty much why Battle.net is getting so much flak as well. It's no different than Steam, and I don't see people up at arms about them...
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
I think John Funk stated it quite planely on Page 2. The entire story is a basic B-movie type stuff. And quite frankly I do not care. I love playing/watching a B-movie every now and again! If I wanted a game with story I would go play Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Also to me Gameplay > Story. I mean the game could have a shit story yet awesome gameplay. A great example of this is Bayonetta, excellent gameplay yet the story was confusing, stupid and just shitty IMO. I am sure people will dispute that, but still I am just trying to make a point.

StarCrafts story has always been a B-Movie, just enjoy it and do not pick at it :D
I love B-Movies as well, but I watch those for a laugh and some cheesy fun. SC2 presents itself as DEAD. FUCKING. SERIOUS. It want's you to bask in the glow of it's story and character development, it WANTS you to invest in the story.

There are volumes of starcraft novels out there, there is a comic book planned, this is beyond "it's kind of corny and I can forgive it" because it's not supposed to BE like that. I wouldn't even call it B-Movie fare, the production value of this game is through the roof and it obviously uses A-List voice actors.

I can't treat SC2 like a B-movie and I can't forgive it for it's faults.
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
robinhood36 said:
I love how people are complaining about no lan and having only part 1 of 3 for the story.

Would you have enjoyed the story more if it was 26 missions split between all 3 races? I sure wouldn't and I still enjoy the original game/expac. I loved getting all of the terrans story for this game, it felt very well done. Even if there was some cliche, it was very familiar and still different with a new spin on the game.
Yes i would. I felt the campaign was too long and only reason to draw it so much is so it added 1 unit / mission. Most of them had no actual relevance and could be compressed into much shorter story, up-keeping the integrity and actual dynamics.
I felt the campaign was a bit too much of a stretch and the plot was so ridiculous that i forced myself to finish it.

Even more so. After playing through Wings of Liberty i am not at all interested in playing the follow-ups. For me it's yet another game where Blizzard went too trigger happy on recreating the universe. Same thing happened with Warcraft when WC3 was so different from WC2 and WoW took the retconning of lore even further.

Apart from competitive multiplayer i find the game overly generic, the AI is very poor, the story is not intriguing, the gameplay is unchanged from SC1. For singleplayer experience i'd rather replay the original with expansion pack.
 

Funkiest Monkey

New member
Jul 10, 2010
1,481
0
0
I want this so much. Unfortunately, my shitty computer couldn't run it.

So I guess I'll have to wait until I get a more powerful Laptop later in the year!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
AC10 said:
Captain Placeholder said:
I think John Funk stated it quite planely on Page 2. The entire story is a basic B-movie type stuff. And quite frankly I do not care. I love playing/watching a B-movie every now and again! If I wanted a game with story I would go play Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Also to me Gameplay > Story. I mean the game could have a shit story yet awesome gameplay. A great example of this is Bayonetta, excellent gameplay yet the story was confusing, stupid and just shitty IMO. I am sure people will dispute that, but still I am just trying to make a point.

StarCrafts story has always been a B-Movie, just enjoy it and do not pick at it :D
I love B-Movies as well, but I watch those for a laugh and some cheesy fun. SC2 presents itself as DEAD. FUCKING. SERIOUS. It want's you to bask in the glow of it's story and character development, it WANTS you to invest in the story.

There are volumes of starcraft novels out there, there is a comic book planned, this is beyond "it's kind of corny and I can forgive it" because it's not supposed to BE like that. I wouldn't even call it B-Movie fare, the production value of this game is through the roof and it obviously uses A-List voice actors.

I can't treat SC2 like a B-movie and I can't forgive it for it's faults.
Ah I understand, I just treat every film or game as a joke. That is why I find so much fun watching Nightmare on Elm Street or... or... I cannot think of another example, but you know what I mean. Still if you think SC story is bad, just read Richard Knaak's books on WoW, now THOSE are bad hehe ><

ciortas1 said:
Captain Placeholder said:
ciortas1 said:
Captain Placeholder said:
No LAN is a problem, and you can easily find it out by trying any of the different custom maps (brawler, space invaders etc). The delay on every single command is borderline unbearable.
I have no delay, I even measured up with the LAN and it works just the same to me. Looks like you need a new computer or get a new ISP :p
I specifically said certain custom maps. Melee maps are running at around 100 ms for me.
Oh, then just do not play those Custom Maps. See? Problem solved!
 

Tortoiseloz

New member
Oct 20, 2009
91
0
0
I bought the special edition (Yeah!! Awesome stuff!!) and special or not that game is awesome I got addicted in 5 minutes!
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
As someone who got the game on release day and have been playing it every day since, I can say that this is one of the best games I've played in many years, and definitely the best RTS I've played in as long as I can remember.

The campaign is extremely well put together, the missions are varied, and everything about it is friendly to new players. If this was the first RTS you played it would be your best possible choice.

On the other hand, Blizzard have made several very strange choices for this game. (Unless all you want to do on battle.net is play melee) battle.net v2.0 is an enormous leap backwards. I don't even mean things like no LAN support or how you need to go online to get your achievements, etc

No, I mean things like how they have completely destroyed the custom maps community. Here is a very tiny representation of the dismay our european forums are currently in:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/169348414
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/169348640
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/169528451
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/169346958
Sorry to be slightly off-topic, but I'm not sure I understand what it is most people want changed about the current custom game system... You can already upload you own maps with their own names/ descriptions. Just trying to fix my ignorance.
The system is fundamentally broken. Let me explain with a website...Youtube, I'm sure you're familiar with it. Imagine they just removed the search bar, removed the rating system and made anyone be able to upload a video and claim ownership of it. Not only this, they would only put the following videos on the front page:

Justin Bieber - Baby ft. Ludacris
Lady Gaga - Bad Romance
Charlie bit my finger - again !
Evolution of Dance
Miley Cyrus - Party in the USA
Pitbull - I know you want me
Shakira - Waka Waka
Hahaha
Miley Cyrus- 7 Things
Lady Gaga-Just Dance

If you notice, those videos are the most viewed on youtube. Because they are on the front page and they are the most viewed, even more people would add to their view count, cementing their spot on the front page. Now imagine that in order to get to the video that you want, you have to click a "show more" button below these videos that would bring you a list of another ten videos, but there's a problem.

The second page of those videos are 11th, 12th, 13th...etc in terms of view count. Now imagine you're looking for "Harvard Study on Anti-Biotics". Can you imagine the amount of unbelievable stupidity you would have to wade through?

This is what Blizzard, in essence, is doing.
That's just a small example. This is truly bizzare since by far and large the main reason WC3 remaines popular to this day is because of its custom map system (and the user-friendly map editor).

In addition, it lacks many features fundamental to an online game, like chat channels, and Blizzard's only response to this has been that they'll add it sometime in the future.

[SPOILER WARNING:]
On a more trivial note, with the game they have significantly retconned enormous amounts of Starcraft lore and changed the personalities and motivations of many characters, and the only real way to get any information on alot of what happens in the game is to read the books they've published. That wouldn't be too bad, if it wasn't for that several very important events in Wings of Liberty alone are utterly incomprehensible to someone who hasn't read said books. At some point Mengks's son just shows up and gives you half his father's fleet without any explanation beyond "i dont like my father lol" - and unless you watched practically every single one of the news broadcasts you wouldn't even know who the guy was at that point.

The focus of the narrative has also changed from space opera to an extremely clichè and uninteresting personal love/revenge story - lead by Jim Raynor, GENERIC WHITE MALE ACTION HERO NUMBER#9001.

These (in my mind) significant flaws aside, Starcraft 2 is one of the best games to have been released in a very long time.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
Oh, then just do not play those Custom Maps. See? Problem solved!
That defeats the whole purpose of having a world editor with such huge possibilities. Not to mention this is the same attitude silly people had towards the Real ID shenanigans. This isn't good, and it shouldn't be supported.
 

LWS666

[Speech: 100]
Nov 5, 2009
1,030
0
0
the lack of LAN support is fine for me because i have internet, and the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.

an awesome game, but the online is very hard for beginers that aren't masters of multi-tasking.
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
LWS666 said:
...the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.
I realize you're not the one making this claim, but I'm just gonna correct you anyway - you don't have to be connected to the internet. You can still play just fine offline, though you won't be able to do achievements.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Am I really the only one that was terribly dissapointed with the campaign? The missions were way too tutorialesque with most of the missions being a way of holding your hand through learning THE new unit. It seemed to me the story had been built around the missions, instead of the other way around. The mission with the battlecruisers and the psi towers come to mind...yamatoyamatoyamato...To me it seems the only reason the single player campaign was there was to present the units and abilities to people completely unexperienced to rtses and wet their appetite for multiplayer.

The "twist" was terrible, I couldnt care less about the crew and the best missions in the entire campaign was when you were NOT playing terrans...

The little story that was there was awful. I think it might be too long since some people have played SC1.
Fire it up again, check out the campaign. 30 epic missions with 4 pre-rendered cut scenes PER race. vs maybe 4 in the entire campaign here? And honestly, if anyone feels that the end of SC2 was even remotely close to the epicness that was the SC1 ending...I just dont know what to say.

The story was also VASTLY bigger in SC1, encompassing a lot of people and conflicts...SC2 was way way under par imo. The gameplay is as excellent as ever, and the polish is blinding but the story...? Really? Most dissapointing thing in a long long time.

If blizzard screws up diablo 3 in a similar matter I am going to lose absolutely all faith I have in them. Fortunately Diablo 3 looks awesome.
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Richard Allen said:
MegaSlaan said:
Richard Allen said:
werekitsune said:
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
If you don't mind a few plot holes (like exactly how kerrigan become the queen of blades, they gloss over it briefly and explain but not in-depth) then I would pick it up if resource based fast action RTS is something you like. In the campaign normal mode there were not any points where I felt rushed to the point that I sent my units into a situation I didn't think they could handle but I was also playing on the normal difficulty level so I could get into multi-player asap.

That being said the single player has some great new "gimmicks" and I say that in quotes because while not game changing or industry changing, they make every single map in the single player campaign feel unique.

Mulit-player is where it's at for the most of us however (the campaign can be beaten in about 16 hours if you blast through it, me being a veteran of the game but exploring a bit am at 23-24 ish) and this will make or break it for you I think if your interested in playing the game for more then a few weeks or w/e pace you play it at. It's extremely competitive, on the ladder, many games are over in about 7 minutes (don't think I've had one longer then 20). It's breakneck speed (high level competitors are usually judged a bit based on actions per minute which is in the 250-350 range for sc gods), and good chunk is bases on resource management.

Here's the other thing though, the map editor is just about the most powerful one to date. You can litterally turn a map in to a first person shooter experience if you want to so I would expect some very clever maps and game modes once the community gets involved.

MegaSlaan said:
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
1st: Yes the game is well worth it for the campaign alone, they definately didn't skimp out on the single player for multiplayer. If you enjoyed the original then your definately going to want to add this to your collection.

and

2nd: Really? REALLY? Can we just drop the whining and crying about DRM already, it's not going anywhere. Those of you who are against it have reason to fear it, which means you were doing something illegal with the software in the first place and essentially created this problem for yourselves.
REALLY REALLY (seewhatIdidthere)? You going to pull that same crap about drm. I've got a finger to show you. I bought the game just like I buy every other game. I understand lack of lan, I hate it, it goes against what Blizz has done in the past (spawning was soooo nice) but in all reality there are very few situations that this will affect people but there are some. I regularly play ad-hoc games while traveling and there are plenty of times where peoples internet goes out and are looking for something to do. Just because my situation is different then yours and you can't possibly conceive a situation where you might not have internet doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Maybe you shouldn't lay down blanket statements like your all thieves when I can guarantee I have supported the video game industry since the beginning and have been buying blizzard games since before they were blizzard.
Ok here's a bag of ice for your puss puss and Steel Magnolias for you to cry over. Oh and a tampon because you are one massively whiney ****.
Yes because I am sick of being called thief because I want to play on a lan that makes me a whiny c***. FWIW I could give a crap what you think of me but you follow the same line of thought as some of the greats like Kotick who feel that by punishing the people who actually buy the game while doing zilch about piracy is a good idea. The day every single one of your games has an always on internet connection and every time your internet has a hicup and you get dropped to your last save remember this post, it's people like you who are causing it. Also if your just going to drop obscenities and not even make an argument your pretty worthless as a commenter and I would ask you to troll somewhere else, this is one of the better communities and I think most of us would rather have you out of here.


removing LAN from starcraft 2 has NOTHING to do with piracy. There's tons of anti-piracy features. It was done so that they could sell the game with a subscription model in certain countries. I.e., no one in Korea or Russia would pay 9.99 monthly if they could buy the game once for 20 bucks and play on a LAN with their friends.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
werekitsune said:
This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.
When you are installing SC2, there is a voiceover narrator that catches you up with the game really well. Story-wise, you should be fine.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
I will not support Activision or Bobby Kotick. Screw them. I'd encourage people to pirate it more, but piracy doesn't do crap to big companies apparently
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
HAhaha... I love how people in this thread go 'LAN is outdated' and 'LAN is obsolete'. First of all, say that in GAMING it's obsolete if you have to.

Still 'don't play custom games', that comment is pure brilliance. Same guy also stated 'look up build orders while your internet is down'. Seriously, I should be deprived of a game that I BOUGHT with my own damn money, just because my ISP dc'd me for whatever reason? Are you listening to your arguments at all?

Second of all, it's not the fact that SC2 doesn't have LAN support, it's the fact that SC1 was one of the greatest, biggest LAN tournament games ever. It was pretty much the pinnacle of esports, the fact that they still play it in Korea should speak for itself.

Removing a feature like LAN in the sequel, is shafting the whole community... and what's more, the mentality here, roll over and accept fate is just terrible.

Also, I'm sure the game is good, but until someone gives me a good reason why the game is so good, and can show me, that the game pushes the boundaries of the RTS genre and is something more than sc1 with updated graphics, and it's not just another apm-clickfest that was sc and wc I'm not going to bother.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
JaredXE said:
"Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."


But it's not all of Starcraft II....I'm confused. Did Blizzard package all three stories at the last minute?
StarCraft I was The Hobbit. A smaller, self-contained story. This is Fellowship of the Ring. It is a huge campaign experience that happens to be the first third of an even larger story.
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
John Funk said:
Who's discussing story? The story in StarCraft is cheesy B-movie space opera, the same as it's always been. Nobody expects great story from Chris Metzen, they expect a popcorn flick which is exactly what we got.
But it isn't cheese b-movie space opera. It's cheesy b-movie personal action/love story where the hero is in love with a crazy mass-murdering alien for no reason.

Imagine if they never made WoW and warcraft 4 started off where warcraft 3 TFT left off, but the whole story is centered around Jaina Proudmoore, now a crack- I mean, mana addict, who is out to save Arthas. The story is her gathering allies in random villages, where she solves random people's problems, by mass teleporting her entire army around, and then right before the end of the game a dreadlord shows up without any warning and gives her a MacGuffin that destroys the frozen throne and frees Arthas from the Ner'zhul's icy grasp. Also it revived him. And (probably) made him good again even though he sacked one of his own cities, lead one of his best friends to his death, betrayed his own solders on icecrown and lead them to their doom. (Keep in mind that the things Kerrigan have done are many million times more atrocious)

Throughout the campaign we get entertained by Jaina randomly chatting it up in a very girly fashion with undeveloped random people she met on her journey that we never learn anything about.
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Nurb said:
I will not support Activision or Bobby Kotick. Screw them. I'd encourage people to pirate it more, but piracy doesn't do crap to big companies apparently
You cant pirate this game, they made the game into an MMO RPG want to play login...Someone hacks your account you need to buy a new copy of starcraft2 they made all the problems that MMORPSs have into RTS problems
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Emergent System said:
(Keep in mind that the things Kerrigan have done are many million times more atrocious)
And keep in mind that, unlike Arthas, Kerrigan committed no atrocities before being transformed (well, none that didn't came with being an elite soldier anyway). If you take in account that, lore-wise, the Zerg were created with purity of essence: essentially they are single minded about consuming everything everywhere:
It would be perfectly acceptable for Raynor to believe that if Kerrigan was de-zergified, she would become her old self as opposed to a murderous *****.

Which indeed is what the ending cinematic seems to imply
 

ark123

New member
Feb 19, 2009
485
0
0
Richard Allen said:
ark123 said:
Richard Allen said:
Blue_vision said:
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?
Depending on how bad you are you will probably loose all 5 of your placement matches and maybe a few more while it gets a feel for how good you are. Unless you are the worst player on earth the match making system will eventually find a good set of people for you to play with at or near your level. They had to detune it a bit during beta because every single match became a fight for your life match which was pretty intense during a marathon session. Now it will give you a good mix of easy matches, hard matches that you probably can't win (but are very good to watch the replays and learn from), and some that take every ounce of attention and skill you got but make you love the win all that much more. There is a 7 hour free trial with every game, if you can pick up one and do a marathon session of multi-player, and see how you feel at the end. I'm sure you it will find some good opponents for you.
If you play through the campaign and do the challenges I personally guarantee you will not lose all 5 placement matches.
More then likely not but during beta (smaller pool and I would guess a more difficult pool) I had a buddy lose his first 8 matches, he's pretty bad though. My only point was that if that is the case and you really are that bad don't give up. The match making system will find a good level of play for you.
It was meant to work with the amount of people in the system now. If you're silver you'll find a lot of people cautiously reading all the units descriptions, if You're gold you'll find people making 100 marauders and flinging them all unsupported at your base, and if you're platinum you might actually get a decent game.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Thank you for a review of SC2 which actually talks about the game rather than just mentioning the story line and going "OMGOSH AMAZIN!" like so many of the other "professional" reviews out there. It does sound interesting and is a good review, but I still find it hard to believe that it's that solid of an RTS as it seems to have ignored most of the large RTS' this decade such as anything by Relic. Have to get my hands on a copy...
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Mazty said:
I still find it hard to believe that it's that solid of an RTS as it seems to have ignored most of the large RTS' this decade such as anything by Relic.
That was kind of the point really. As good as Relic games are, they are a different beast altogether: they aren't so much an evolution as a branching path.

There are millions of people who like old-school RTS. Blizzard knows this, and it also knows that Starcraft was the grandmaster of that. You could make a game set in the Starcraft universe that followed the recent RTS crowd and reduced base building and added stuff like cover systems, but it simply wouldn't be Starcraft 2.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
A much better review then most,

HOWEVER

What I want to know is how can StarCraft 2 be so good when it has these gaping flaws:

- Workers mining minerals
- None adjustable game speed from within the game
- Such a slow construction and game pace that every game is played on the fast setting
- Dated graphics and terrible animations
- Small scale
- Very shallow style of combat eg. No flanking, no morale, no cover system

With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?
Because most of those aren't actually flaws, but subjective preferences that a lot of old-school gamers miss in recent RTS?

And what do you mean no flanking?
 

GoGo_Boy

New member
May 12, 2010
218
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
A much better review then most,

HOWEVER

What I want to know is how can StarCraft 2 be so good when it has these gaping flaws:

- Workers mining minerals
- None adjustable game speed from within the game
- Such a slow construction and game pace that every game is played on the fast setting
- Dated graphics and terrible animations
- Small scale
- Very shallow style of combat eg. No flanking, no morale, no cover system

With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?
What the hack?
This post is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start.

Workers mining minerals is a general flaw? None adjustable game speed from within the game even there is in fact adjustable game speed from within the game.
The standard game speed is in fact "faster" play ladder and you'll see it. Normal is just for newer people who cannot comprehend the FAST pace of SC. You call it slow? Really?

Graphics look superb (okay may be a personal opinion) and terrible animations? ARE YOU SERIOUS? They even have a fantastic lip sync for ingame portrait animations. And that for all localized versions as well.

Small scale is relative and it doesn't say anything about the quality of a game. So 40000 units make a game better than 4000?

And shallow gameplay? Ah c'mon why am I even arguing with the most obvious SC2-Hater-Leader in the universe.
 

tautologico

e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
Apr 5, 2010
725
0
0
ionveau said:
Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to
What? Levels copy-pasted from WC3? Did you even play the game or are you just dropping by to spew your hate?
 

technoted

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,031
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Review: StarCraft II

It only took 12 years, but this sequel was worth it.

Read Full Article
This is easily the best game I have played since Gears of War and even though it seriously messed up my graphics card I've not had this much fun in god knows how long. And it came in a large box full of goodies!

But seriously, how awesome was Odin, I loved every second of it!
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
[quote="TB_Infidel"
With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?[/quote]

Because these aren't necessarily advancements, like some people prefer Space Invaders to Call of Duty or Pong to Virtua Tennis.

Why a graphical update of Starcraft goes for $60 while a graphical update of Monkey Island 2 goes for $10 is a little less certain though.
 

Kavonde

Usually Neutral Good
Feb 8, 2010
323
0
0
"Satisfying" isn't the word I'd use for the campaign. "Leaving you desperately wanting more, seeing as only one story thread was resolved, and that just opened up more threads, but you'll have to wait another two years and pay another $40-$60 to get the next third of the game. In the meantime, I hope you like achievement whoring, comparatively lifeless A.I. skirmishes, and getting your ass kicked by Korean guys" covers it better.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
GoGo_Boy said:
TB_Infidel said:
A much better review then most,

HOWEVER

What I want to know is how can StarCraft 2 be so good when it has these gaping flaws:

- Workers mining minerals
- None adjustable game speed from within the game
- Such a slow construction and game pace that every game is played on the fast setting
- Dated graphics and terrible animations
- Small scale
- Very shallow style of combat eg. No flanking, no morale, no cover system

With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?
What the hack?
This post is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start.

Workers mining minerals is a general flaw? None adjustable game speed from within the game even there is in fact adjustable game speed from within the game.
The standard game speed is in fact "faster" play ladder and you'll see it. Normal is just for newer people who cannot comprehend the FAST pace of SC. You call it slow? Really?

Graphics look superb (okay may be a personal opinion) and terrible animations? ARE YOU SERIOUS? They even have a fantastic lip sync for ingame portrait animations. And that for all localized versions as well.

Small scale is relative and it doesn't say anything about the quality of a game. So 40000 units make a game better than 4000?

And shallow gameplay? Ah c'mon why am I even arguing with the most obvious SC2-Hater-Leader in the universe.
Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?
 

Flying-Emu

New member
Oct 30, 2008
5,367
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Greg Tito would like to be Egon Stettman's friend.
I hear you on that one. Especially after the "He's dead, Jim." reference.

I knew, from the beginning, that SOMEONE was going to make a quip like that.
 

Nunny

New member
Aug 22, 2009
334
0
0
ninjajoeman said:
Nunny said:
I enjoyed the game but it did feel like the story is rushed through, not much time spent on each part of the story.

Still a great game, even if it seems to be slowing down the longer i replay it.
rushed you say...
well not to say zerg rush but how was this game rushed at all?
The game itself is not rushed, just the story.
For instance, a world wide revolt takes all of one small mission... the shortness of story lines seems to continue throughout the game, expecialy with a quick ending.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Xocrates said:
Mazty said:
I still find it hard to believe that it's that solid of an RTS as it seems to have ignored most of the large RTS' this decade such as anything by Relic.
That was kind of the point really. As good as Relic games are, they are a different beast altogether: they aren't so much an evolution as a branching path.

There are millions of people who like old-school RTS. Blizzard knows this, and it also knows that Starcraft was the grandmaster of that. You could make a game set in the Starcraft universe that followed the recent RTS crowd and reduced base building and added stuff like cover systems, but it simply wouldn't be Starcraft 2.
That's not really answering the question. Saying it's a different beast isn't true - games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes bettered the genre by introducing more strategy, something which is vital in RTS'.
Claiming that Starcraft need not change is nonsense unless you want to claim it's the best RTS ever, which we both know would be a nonsensical claim.
Just because a majority of people enjoy a game it doesn't mean it's the best in the genre. Starcraft wasn't even the grandmaster! This idea that it received flawless praise is nonsense as it didn't, plus Total Annihilation received more praise and frankly was a better RTS due to it's scale and balancing. But have you heard of it before? Sadly one of the only reason Starcraft is known is because of the large Korean following.
Saying it wouldn't be Starcraft isn't an adequate reply. I want to know why the removal of the last decade of innovation in the game is a good thing and how it makes the game better than the competition. Frankly from what I can tell it'd just make the game less tactical, which I'm sure we'd agree is a daft move.
 

Madmanonfire

New member
Jul 24, 2009
301
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?
Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Electric Gel said:
Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.
Kerrigan has some changes, but she still has it around the eyes. I get the feeling she got some Nova blended into her look over the years.

I think Raynor had much bigger changes. When I saw the trailer for this I couldn't even tell who I was looking at until he opened his mouth and the old voice came out. He looks like he's Mengsk's freaking brother now. It's unsettling.

Other than Raynor's new look I think the characters are fine. The voices - the ones that changed from the original game - are a bit more disappointing, but they do alright. ...except maybe Tassadar. And Kerrigan sounds sorta...wrong. I dunno, it's hard to judge them on their own merits when I'm always comparing them to the old version.

Except Tassadar.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Madmanonfire said:
TB_Infidel said:
Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?
Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.
So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.
 

Celador

New member
Oct 26, 2009
31
0
0
Stale and clichéd story, bland and unmemorable music, single campaign (yeah there's already rumors that each standalone/addon will cost around 50-60 bucks as well). Yup - totally worth your attention and money!

Blizzard spend way too much on marketing (not that theres anything wrong with that), but the game itself hardly qualifies as a decent RTS, at least for those who never played starcraft 1. Build orders? Rushing? Couple of infantry units taking down buildings and mechs? Fun if your Korean or a fan, awkward and frustrating if you're not.

Multiplayer actually feels more like a blitz chess game, rather than RTS - it requires no imagination or tactic whatsoever, only memorizing and fast clicking, so the first person to make a mistake - loses, and if you have an equal foe - it simply becomes a mess.

TB_Infidel said:
What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.
I actually never thought about this, but that might be true as well. Would explain all the fuss around this game, simply being driven by hardcore fans.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Oh, come on man, really? I'm playing SC2 and enjoying it, and maybe I'm just getting crotchety, but "Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."? The poetic gushing devalues the review.
 

Reedfrost

New member
Apr 4, 2010
1
0
0
Sirevien said:
Multiplayer actually feels more like a blitz chess game, rather than RTS - it requires no imagination or tactic whatsoever, only memorizing and fast clicking, so the first person to make a mistake - loses, and if you have an equal foe - it simply becomes a mess.
Did you actually play any of the original Starcraft online? Welcome to the game... that's how it's been played for the last 12 years.
 

Dectilon

New member
Sep 20, 2007
1,044
0
0
Note for those worried about delay problems: I'm from Sweden. I play on the US server with less than half a second of delay. It's much better than Warcraft 3, and of what I hear they're even working on putting LAN back in.

Also note: The campaign missions range from genuinely fun to annoying, whereas the story is so bad I might not even play the campaign when the expansion comes out.
 

hyperdrachen

New member
Jan 1, 2008
468
0
0
Just completed campaign on normal this morning... Wow.. First RTS I have ever played where i thought I could just set it down after the campaign and have gotten my moneys worth. The fact that I like the multiplayer as well sweetens the deal. Gonna set this one beside my mass effect discs, it's a good day to be a gamer.

One of the campaign missions goes down more like a MMO boss encounter than a RTS.
 

CKalvin

New member
Sep 21, 2009
84
0
0
"One might argue that the single player campaign is a mere preamble to the multiplayer battles of StarCraft II, where your mettle is tested against the multitudes. I disagree. Despite the pressures of recreating the success of the multiplayer masterpiece of the first StarCraft, Blizzard obviously didn't put all of their eggs into perfecting just that portion of the game. The essence of StarCraft II is the saga of Raynor against the Zerg-infested Kerrigan and the struggle of freedom versus oppression."

Are you kidding me? Honestly. How many people still played the BW campaign on a weekly/daily basis after Sc1 and BW had been released for 3-4 years? Comparing that to the ridiculous amount of competitive multiplayer matches, it's easy to see where the true nature of Starcraft lies.

In its multiplayer. Anyone who says so is either a) probably a D player or worse or b) prefers a good story to a GG. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but claiming Starcraft is a singleplayercentric game is like calling Half Life 2 a physics simulator.
TB_Infidel said:
Madmanonfire said:
TB_Infidel said:
Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?
Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.
So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.
Dated? You say that like its a curse upon the gaming world. The sequel is dated? Why, because it plays similar to Starcraft 1? "Modernising and improving the game style"? How exactly do you propose to do that exactly. If there is a problem with Starcraft 2, its that it's become too easy. The skill ceiling has been capped, with the computer handling a lot of micro that previously in BW needed a human touch.

The Blizzard team tried "modernising" Sc2 with a cover system which according to you would somehow make the game so much better. But it didn't work. The pacing became stuffed up, T would be OP'ed because all they need is to play a mech ball and leapfrog all the way across the map for an easy GG. Typical cover systems work because other RTS have classes with relatively similar playing styles, whereas a Z player will play in a completely different way to a T player.

And what RTS' do YOU play? I'm not even a proper RTS player, I'm actually a hardcore FPS ( 1.6, source, quake, UT ) that just occasionally dabbles in RTS like RA3 and of course BW which I used to play pretty religiously.
 

UnkeptBiscuit

New member
Jun 25, 2009
363
0
0
Virgil said:
Honestly, I don't think the multiplayer can hold up to how great the variety of the campaign was, or at least not until people get used to the scripting system and create some maps that have more complexity than simply "kill the other player" arena matches. After the success of Defense of the Ancients, I would have thought that Blizzard would have released with a bit more game variety in the multiplayer.
At least part of that is because in many circles the game's treated like a sport. If you played tennis, you wouldn't want them to change the rules around every so often, would you? Having the game system set in stone gives people something to master.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I couldn't tell it better than Greg Tito, this is THE best game I've ever played this year, THE best RTS I've ever played (this is coming from someone who hated with his soul the first game) and THE best game Blizzard has ever created and that's saying a lot.

I can't wait for Heart of The Swarm to come out.

I hope this year's Blizzcon secret annoucement is Heart of The Swarm being released this december.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
John Funk said:
The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.
Considering Blizz just tossed ye olde battle.net out the window and made it brand spanking new(I could even sense the new car smell), there are going to be bugs and hiccups. But Blizzard doesn't dillydally on dealing with issues. Heck I just got my copy today and there was already a smattering a fixes. Wasn't a mention on the framerate issue in the patch notes if that was addressed but I didn't have any problems there. I take good care of my baby. Keep in mind that Battle.net is going to be holding your Blizzard games as Steam does with all the games you can play through that service. Treat your Battle.net account like it was your first born child. Change password regularly and beware of scams. Otherwise you may end up losing your account and Blizzard may not be able to save it. In which case you will have to buy new games to put on a new account. An expensive proposition if you are deep into WoW. And there are no Xel'Naga artifacts to be found in this sector of the galaxy to sell.
As far as so-called DRM(which Blizzard never really used the term specifically or referred to but not claimed was their tactic) and online play: Welcome to the 21st Century. Those who are bemoaning the death of LAN and wondering why they have to do things online to get them done, you are now officially old farts. Soup and milk will be served in the cafeteria at 1:30 and the polkafest will be afterward.
Yes, having to go online for matches can tend to cause lag issues, but take into consideration that a game of this scope wouldn't even be playable online ten years ago. Wireless and communication lines are constantly improving, so what is laggy today will be smooth tomorrow. Unless you are on an outdated system in which case you have only yourself to blame. If you can't get a new PC, upgrade what you can. I steadily have with my PC and have kept it nice and shiny, with a decent internet access that doesn't break even my bank.
Either case, you are still able to play with the friends you know, or can just take a random shot online. Whether the matchmaking system Blizzard is using does its job remains to be seen. I aim to find out myself in time. As soon as I give Mengsk a swift kick in the arse.
I highly doubt there are any plans for turning Starcraft into an MMO. For one I don't see how the Zerg would be playable(since they are a hive race and there are no true individuals short of the cerebrates and Queen of Blades), which would leave only two factions...both leaving a lot to be desired as far as real individual opportunity as characters. Whatever happens through this storyline, and I am quite sure we are in for some sweet surprises, things will be folded up neatly or a foundation will be built for the third Starcraft or added chapters beyond the initial three. Which I look forward to playing, with thoughts as to what we may be seeing. I say may.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Shoggoth2588 said:
There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes
Yahtzee doesn't review RTS's. The only exception being Halo Wars was done so to make the point on why he doesn't like to(considering his attitude on Halo it seems to represent a double contradiction on his part. Interesting). Read his latest Extra Punctuation [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7938-Extra-Punctuation-On-RTS-Games].
Either case, no one game is for everyone. Nobody here is expecting you to play it and there are plenty others out there to enjoy.
 

jack_hectic

New member
Dec 24, 2008
30
0
0
i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... "

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
The game was solid but the story felt incomplete(and yes I know it's a trilogy but the terran part feels horrible unfinished).

jack_hectic said:
i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... "

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!
This one of of those title that reviews will just give perfect score to no matter what sadly. The game is by no stretch of the imagination bad, it's just not nearly as good as to warrant a 100%
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
I agree Electric Gel, Kerrigan is way more sexed up. Seriously have you seen her? Not that it's a bad thing...
Seems to have more sexual content, especially that Dancer in the Cantina for the Campaign.

Starcraft 2 is real fucking awesome. One of the best PC games out there.


Firehopper said:
It's $120 here in New Zealand D:
And I bought it! Fuck Yeah! Even though we arguably have it the worst.

One last thing, Starcraft being B-Movie Material is what makes it awesome. Anything that is a fusion of Warhammer 40,000, Starship Troopers and Aliens has got to be (forgive me but) legendary.
 

Electric Gel

New member
Mar 26, 2009
85
0
0
Shjade said:
Electric Gel said:
Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.
Kerrigan has some changes, but she still has it around the eyes. I get the feeling she got some Nova blended into her look over the years.

I think Raynor had much bigger changes. When I saw the trailer for this I couldn't even tell who I was looking at until he opened his mouth and the old voice came out. He looks like he's Mengsk's freaking brother now. It's unsettling.

Other than Raynor's new look I think the characters are fine. The voices - the ones that changed from the original game - are a bit more disappointing, but they do alright. ...except maybe Tassadar. And Kerrigan sounds sorta...wrong. I dunno, it's hard to judge them on their own merits when I'm always comparing them to the old version.

Except Tassadar.
I do agree, there adequate, but that's all they are. The voices still seem top notch, and I'm glad they've used Rayners old voice actor (whose cracking). I agree with how he looks like Mengsk now, and Mengsk doesn't look anything like Mengsk. I really do miss the old Rayner, as sad as that sounds.

Novas the lass from the Starcraft ghost game isn't she? If so then yer, I'd have to agree, she looks very much like her.She looks completely different from the old Kerrigan. I can easily live with that, I'm just a little disappointed. I was really hoping that they'd be trying to push the creativity with this game, and it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.

Nouw, I've not seen that shot before, and I like women's bottoms as much as the next man, but does that future lycra have to be so heavily stuffed up her crack? It really saddens me that games still can't get past this ultra sexy woman look. It really de-values the hobby.

... my god, that's shapely.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?

If you're mostly interested in the story, then watch playthroughs on youtube.
They've already got full game playthroughs there.

I saw the full story and am certain that if I liked RTS games I would have gone out and bought the game for myself. However, I don't like them, I just like the story. I saw the story play out, I'm satisfied.
 

LWS666

[Speech: 100]
Nov 5, 2009
1,030
0
0
Emergent System said:
LWS666 said:
...the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.
I realize you're not the one making this claim, but I'm just gonna correct you anyway - you don't have to be connected to the internet. You can still play just fine offline, though you won't be able to do achievements.
i haven't wanted to disconnect my internet to test it, i just heard that if you're offline you can only play as a guest on skirmish matches and can't save your progress.

srsly don't care though, i have BFBC2 set up to only work with an internet connection too.

no-one mentions that, BFBC2 gives the option for that or X installs.
 

Firetaffer

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
Firehopper said:
It's $120 here in New Zealand D:
$98 in Dick Smith. (Through only order with free delivery)

And I bought it.

The matchmaking is one of the FINEST I have seen! It's awesome! Perhaps it's because it's just the first few days and the community's are bustling, but it finds an absolute perfect match in under 3 seconds.
 

Ph33onix

New member
Jun 4, 2010
120
0
0
I will not only buy the game, I will also buy a knew computer specifically to run this and most new games at max settings.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Mazty said:
That's not really answering the question. Saying it's a different beast isn't true - games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes bettered the genre by introducing more strategy, something which is vital in RTS'.
Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

All of this is fine, but it just means it's a different type of game. Your argument is like saying Classical music sucks because Rock'n Roll is so much better.


Mazty said:
Claiming that Starcraft need not change is nonsense unless you want to claim it's the best RTS ever, which we both know would be a nonsensical claim.
Starcraft needed not (a lot of) change simply because it fills a niche all but forgotten by recent RTS. For all your arguments you seem to forget that DoW 2 got a lot of backlash because it had no base building, and one could say that C&C 4 failed pretty much because it wasn't an old school game.

Let Starcraft/old School players have their fix. This is especially true since reviews pretty much all point out that the game is "dated". The reason it doesn't matter is because despite that it's still fun.
Everything else in the game (plot, campaign, multiplayer, presentation) is at least on par with the all the other top RTS out there, so it's hardly a surprise it's getting such good reviews

Mazty said:
Just because a majority of people enjoy a game it doesn't mean it's the best in the genre. Starcraft wasn't even the grandmaster! This idea that it received flawless praise is nonsense as it didn't, plus Total Annihilation received more praise and frankly was a better RTS due to it's scale and balancing. But have you heard of it before? Sadly one of the only reason Starcraft is known is because of the large Korean following.
There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games.

All of that misses the point that they all play differently and some people prefer one over the other. Starcraft ended being the most popular of them all, and despite all your complaints, it was still a good game.

Personally I never really liked the C&C games (though I had fun playing them), and while I didn't play TA, I did play Supreme Commander which I found average, shallow, and ultimately more old-school than Starcraft.

Mazty said:
Saying it wouldn't be Starcraft isn't an adequate reply. I want to know why the removal of the last decade of innovation in the game is a good thing and how it makes the game better than the competition. Frankly from what I can tell it'd just make the game less tactical, which I'm sure we'd agree is a daft move.
The game isn't get glowing reviews because it's old school, it's getting glowing reviews because despite being old-school it's still really fun, and it's presented extraordinarily well.

You can complain all you want, but the single player campaign has more variety (and for the most part it's longer) than all the "modern" RTS you're championing, and while you can complain about the plot, it doesn't change the fact that it's at least as good as the competition and presented better than any of them.

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't say the game isn't good.

But ultimately, and in a way, I find all this argument funny since nowadays a game can't be released without people complaining about "dumbing down" and the "consolification of the PC" and when a game comes out that doesn't, we argue that it should have.
 

JackShandy

New member
Feb 27, 2010
17
0
0
Innovation's not the be-all and end-all. Trashing a perfectly great game just 'cause it's not new enough is idiotic. We shouldn't just kill and bury perfectly good game styles just as soon as they stop being in vogue. Hell, I'm playing Hydorah at the moment. Space-shooters are dead as a doornail, but it's still a fantastic game.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
CKalvin said:
"One might argue that the single player campaign is a mere preamble to the multiplayer battles of StarCraft II, where your mettle is tested against the multitudes. I disagree. Despite the pressures of recreating the success of the multiplayer masterpiece of the first StarCraft, Blizzard obviously didn't put all of their eggs into perfecting just that portion of the game. The essence of StarCraft II is the saga of Raynor against the Zerg-infested Kerrigan and the struggle of freedom versus oppression."

Are you kidding me? Honestly. How many people still played the BW campaign on a weekly/daily basis after Sc1 and BW had been released for 3-4 years? Comparing that to the ridiculous amount of competitive multiplayer matches, it's easy to see where the true nature of Starcraft lies.

In its multiplayer. Anyone who says so is either a) probably a D player or worse or b) prefers a good story to a GG. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but claiming Starcraft is a singleplayercentric game is like calling Half Life 2 a physics simulator.
TB_Infidel said:
Madmanonfire said:
TB_Infidel said:
Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?
*snip*
So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.
Dated? You say that like its a curse upon the gaming world. The sequel is dated? Why, because it plays similar to Starcraft 1? "Modernising and improving the game style"? How exactly do you propose to do that exactly. If there is a problem with Starcraft 2, its that it's become too easy. The skill ceiling has been capped, with the computer handling a lot of micro that previously in BW needed a human touch.

The Blizzard team tried "modernising" Sc2 with a cover system which according to you would somehow make the game so much better. But it didn't work. The pacing became stuffed up, T would be OP'ed because all they need is to play a mech ball and leapfrog all the way across the map for an easy GG. Typical cover systems work because other RTS have classes with relatively similar playing styles, whereas a Z player will play in a completely different way to a T player.

And what RTS' do YOU play? I'm not even a proper RTS player, I'm actually a hardcore FPS ( 1.6, source, quake, UT ) that just occasionally dabbles in RTS like RA3 and of course BW which I used to play pretty religiously.
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Again, how can you say a cover system would make T OP when you have not played an RTS with a cover system? Dawn of War 2 has races that fit into the zerg and Terran box and both use cover perfectly, showing that if the studio is competent, then it can be done well.

So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

NB. What are the spec's of your PC as I presume they are poor? Is this a reason why you only play games that are very old?


Xocrates said:
Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.
Base building was an essential part of DoW. If you messed up your build order then it could lose you the battle.
With mechanics such as moral and melee, it still maintained a heavy amount of macroing as you could change the outcome of a battle if you properly managed your troops. You say there was a smaller amount of units when actually DoW had more units then StarCraft, merely they were put into squads for more reasonable management. With the weapon choices you could give to your troops, this too factly changed the build of an army, along with elite unit types and commanders. CoH had no base building, but was focused on a more tactical side of combat, again with flanking, cover, destructible scenery, armour location, and moral. How click spam is more tactical then this is beyond me.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire
Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

TB_Infidel said:
These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Arguable and up to personal preference.

TB_Infidel said:
So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.
I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.
 

JackShandy

New member
Feb 27, 2010
17
0
0
I think we all know that, in order to have an opinion on Starcraft 2, you must have played every RTS created in the last hundred years and spend your entire budget each year on honing your PC into a finely-developed leviathan beast.

Stop using stupid ad hominem "You aren't a cultured enough gamer to truely APPRECIATE how much starcraft 2 sucks" attacks, TB_infidel. The game is the way it is. You should critique it for that, not attack it because it's unlike a different type of game. What you're doing is like reviewing the latest Mario game poorly because it didn't take advantage of the innovations used in Braid.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Xocrates said:
TB_Infidel said:
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire
Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

TB_Infidel said:
These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Arguable and up to personal preference.

TB_Infidel said:
So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.
I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.
Congratulations in merely reaffirming that StarCraft has the strongest fanbase who have no reason to say the game is good bar Blizzard made it and it's a game from their childhood.

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why' ergo, you like it because of nostalgia, not because the game is actually any good.
Just tell me why:
-Harvesting minerals is fun
-Slow build speeds is fun
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
-Fixed game speeds are useful
-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Xocrates said:
Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.
....You haven't played Dawn of War have you?...Saying Dow removes the macro side of RTS is a flat out lie as you had to customise each squads weapons, let alone make a base etc. No base building in DoW?! Litte variation?! Please don't talk about games you've never played - it doesn't help anyone.

All of this is fine, but it just means it's a different type of game. Your argument is like saying Classical music sucks because Rock'n Roll is so much better.
No that's down to artistic preference. Plus from the sounds of what you like SC for, you would enjoy DoW. Simply put SC is an RTS with little emphasis on the S - does that seem like a good idea?


Starcraft needed not (a lot of) change simply because it fills a niche all but forgotten by recent RTS. For all your arguments you seem to forget that DoW 2 got a lot of backlash because it had no base building, and one could say that C&C 4 failed pretty much because it wasn't an old school game.

Let Starcraft/old School players have their fix. This is especially true since reviews pretty much all point out that the game is "dated". The reason it doesn't matter is because despite that it's still fun.
Everything else in the game (plot, campaign, multiplayer, presentation) is at least on par with the all the other top RTS out there, so it's hardly a surprise it's getting such good reviews
The niche it fills is dated and flawed! Yes DoW2 did get a lot of flak for no base building, but go have a look at Supreme Commander and DoW1. "Old school players" is just a charitable term for fanboys and those into nostalgia - it's not a very good RTS to be blunt. All most all reviews, bar this one, just say "OMGOSH AMAZIN" and don't say why, or how it is better than the competition, and that's what it boils down to - how is SC2 better than the competition? Saying it's still fun may be true, but as most of these people have ignored the RTS genre for the last decade, they may find more modern RTS' just as fun. It's like someone claiming goldeneye still rocks just because they never played on anything past the N64.



There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games.

All of that misses the point that they all play differently and some people prefer one over the other. Starcraft ended being the most popular of them all, and despite all your complaints, it was still a good game.

Personally I never really liked the C&C games (though I had fun playing them), and while I didn't play TA, I did play Supreme Commander which I found average, shallow, and ultimately more old-school than Starcraft.
You have zero idea what TA is if you really think SC2 is anything like it. Sorry, but the two games are very different, with TA being far more tactical.
Starcraft didn't end up being the most popular - it ended up being played by the Koreans and anyone who had a bad PC. I think proof of this is most of the avid fans of Starcraft haven't played many of the modern RTS', and those who have almost always say SC is just pretty crappy.

Supreme Commander shallow...? No offence but that just means you were really, really crappy at it as it is one of the largest scale, micro-intense and well balanced RTS' out there.

The game isn't get glowing reviews because it's old school, it's getting glowing reviews because despite being old-school it's still really fun, and it's presented extraordinarily well.

You can complain all you want, but the single player campaign has more variety (and for the most part it's longer) than all the "modern" RTS you're championing, and while you can complain about the plot, it doesn't change the fact that it's at least as good as the competition and presented better than any of them.

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't say the game isn't good.

But ultimately, and in a way, I find all this argument funny since nowadays a game can't be released without people complaining about "dumbing down" and the "consolification of the PC" and when a game comes out that doesn't, we argue that it should have.
As I've said before, the people saying it's fun have probably not played most of the last decades RTS'. How is it presented well? What does that even mean? :S The graphics are sh*t.
It's ironic that you claim so much about what SC2 does better than the competition, but you haven't even played them so it just ends up utterly unsubstantiated claims....
While I haven't played the single player, I was able to get my hands on the beta, and if the core mechanics are the same, then my complaints of it ignoring all innovation for nothing but fan service hold true.
Plus I never complained about the plot.....=S
I don't think ANYONE would argue that a game should be dumbed down, or that no dedicated servers or lean is a good idea, if you are referring to games such as MW2....
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why'
You know why? Because few if any of your points has anything to do with objective quality and all to do with subjective preferences. What if I like building an economy that can support my army? You don't, I get it.

There's no point arguing because nothing I can say will change your mind. You decided Starcraft 2 is crap, fine. That doesn't mean me or for that matter most reviewers agree with you.

Starcraft 2 does what it wanted to do, and it does it very well. If that means being an old-school and, yes, nostalgic game, I don't have a problem with that, and apparently neither do the reviewers. If you do, just don't play it.

There's no point arguing.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Xocrates said:
Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.
I'm calling bullsh*t - How can you make giant f**king errors like saying DoW1 has no base building or micro tactics and yet you claim to have played the original and expansions?
Sorry but until you cough up the truth, here on out what you have to say is going to be just seen as fan nonsense as you seem to be warping reality for some bizarre-o reason.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Greg Tito said:
TB_Infidel said:
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?
StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?

As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Mazty said:
....You haven't played Dawn of War have you?...Saying Dow removes the macro side of RTS is a flat out lie as you had to customise each squads weapons, let alone make a base etc. No base building in DoW?! Litte variation?! Please don't talk about games you've never played - it doesn't help anyone.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I HAVE played DoW, both of them with all expansions. I probably even played it more than the original Starcraft. To be fair, I was talking mostly about DoW 2, since that's the most recent and therefore the "most evolved".

Either way, the macro side of of Dow is significantly reduced compared to starcraft, the MICRO however (pertaining to individual units and their abilities) is bigger.

Mazty said:
No that's down to artistic preference. Plus from the sounds of what you like SC for, you would enjoy DoW. Simply put SC is an RTS with little emphasis on the S - does that seem like a good idea?
Did you even play Starcraft?

Mazty said:
The niche it fills is dated and flawed!
So what? It's still a Niche containing millions of people.

Mazty said:
Yes DoW2 did get a lot of flak for no base building, but go have a look at Supreme Commander and DoW1.
I did play those games. What's your point?

Mazty said:
You have zero idea what TA is if you really think SC2 is anything like it.
Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)

Mazty said:
Starcraft didn't end up being the most popular - it ended up being played by the Koreans and anyone who had a bad PC.
It's by far the best selling RTS of all time. How's that different from the most popular?

Mazty said:
I think proof of this is most of the avid fans of Starcraft haven't played many of the modern RTS', and those who have almost always say SC is just pretty crappy.
That's bullshit and you know it. Name a modern RTS. Odds are that I either played it or tried the Demo (if available).


Mazty said:
Supreme Commander shallow...? No offence but that just means you were really, really crappy at it as it is one of the largest scale, micro-intense and well balanced RTS' out there.
It still has 3 nearly identical races with each tech tier nearly identical to the previous but with bigger units. I admit not playing it much, but that was because I recognize it as a type of RTS I wasn't terribly fond of.


Mazty said:
As I've said before, the people saying it's fun have probably not played most of the last decades RTS'. How is it presented well? What does that even mean? :S The graphics are sh*t.
A lot of people don't mind, or even like, the graphics. And by presentation I wasn't talking about the graphics but the way the story is presented. Namely the briefings, cutscenes and missions themselves.

Mazty said:
It's ironic that you claim so much about what SC2 does better than the competition, but you haven't even played them so it just ends up utterly unsubstantiated claims....
Read my posts: I played them, I played most of them. I probably played RTSs you never even heard about.

DoW? DoW2? CoH? Supreme Commander? World in Conflict? Defcon? Multiwinia? Sins of a Solar Empire?
Yep, all of them. And those are just from the past few years.

Mazty said:
While I haven't played the single player, I was able to get my hands on the beta, and if the core mechanics are the same, then my complaints of it ignoring all innovation for nothing but fan service hold true.
Single player is a nearly completely different game.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Xocrates said:
TB_Infidel said:
At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why'
You know why? Because few if any of your points has anything to do with objective quality and all to do with subjective preferences. What if I like building an economy that can support my army? You don't, I get it.

There's no point arguing because nothing I can say will change your mind. You decided Starcraft 2 is crap, fine. That doesn't mean me or for that matter most reviewers agree with you.

Starcraft 2 does what it wanted to do, and it does it very well. If that means being an old-school and, yes, nostalgic game, I don't have a problem with that, and apparently neither do the reviewers. If you do, just don't play it.

There's no point arguing.
You are doing it again.
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?
You can not change my mind with an argument as strong as ' It is good 'cause', and StarCraft 2 is bad because of the slow, simple, dated elements to it.

If a game is popular merely because of nostalgia then people should be honest, rather then saying it is a good game.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?
I don't recall those mechanics ever been agreed to be bad (unless you mean agreed by you). They're agreed to be old, they've also been agreed that their whole (as opposed to separating them into specific mechanics like you've been doing) to still be rather fun.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Xocrates said:
As I mentioned in a previous post, I HAVE played DoW, both of them with all expansions. I probably even played it more than the original Starcraft. To be fair, I was talking mostly about DoW 2, since that's the most recent and therefore the "most evolved".

Either way, the macro side of of Dow is significantly reduced compared to starcraft, the MICRO however (pertaining to individual units and their abilities) is bigger.

Did you even play Starcraft?
Like crap you've played DoW or Supreme Commander, and if you have you blatantly haven't played enough of it to make any comment on them - to say there is no base building is just a flat out lie as there is a hell of a lot of base building. Don't confuse DoW and DoW 2 as they are very different beasts.
How is the macro side reduced?? You mean with the huge armies and bases etc?
And yes I played SC last night and realised how utterly dated it is with squad limits, over powered units etc.

So what? It's still a Niche containing millions of people. It's by far the best selling RTS of all time. How's that different from the most popular?

Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)
"There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games."
Only an autistic monkey would think SC2 is like TA. Those millions of people are mainly Koreans or people whose PC doesn't have the hardware to play a modern RTS - claiming popular vote doesn't make something the best.


That's bullshit and you know it. Name a modern RTS. Odds are that I either played it or tried the Demo (if available).
[Supreme Commander]still has 3 nearly identical races with each tech tier nearly identical to the previous but with bigger units. I admit not playing it much, but that was because I recognize it as a type of RTS I wasn't terribly fond of.
Then please explain your giant cock-ups saying that there was no base building in DoW1 and that the macro is reduced.
Plus don't talk about games you clearly haven't played enough to comment on. Saying that the races and tech trees in SC are nearly identical shows you played a whole 5, maybe 15 mins of it?



A lot of people don't mind, or even like, the graphics. And by presentation I wasn't talking about the graphics but the way the story is presented. Namely the briefings, cutscenes and missions themselves.
At $60, I expect graphics which are good, not barely passable. The only other RTS' with the same lack of detail are SC and Sins, which have a phenomenal scale. We both know the reason the specs are dumbed down is to cater for the people who haven't bothered getting a vaguely decent machine in the last decade. The cut scenes (from what I've seen) look outstanding, but they are just pre-renders...I thought with the end of the PS1 FF's we'd left expecting outstanding cinematic while settling for crappy in-game graphics behind us.
Killed the next quote as it falls under the "How'd you make such large cock ups if you've played them all?" point.

Single player is a nearly completely different game.
But are the core mechanics the same? Plus good lord there's no need to micro a post up like that o_O
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Xocrates said:
TB_Infidel said:
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?
I don't recall those mechanics ever been agreed to be bad (unless you mean agreed by you). They're agreed to be old, they've also been agreed that their whole (as opposed to separating them into specific mechanics like you've been doing) to still be rather fun.
Stop making straw-men.
How are those mechanics fun? How are games without those mechanics the same or worse?
The mechanics make the game clunky, slow, and look bad. If you disagree, then for once, please say WHY they are fun, WHY they give the game a good pace, and WHY they should have kept those mechanics.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
Mazty said:
Like crap you've played DoW or Supreme Commander, and if you have you blatantly haven't played enough of it to make any comment on them - to say there is no base building is just a flat out lie as there is a hell of a lot of base building. Don't confuse DoW and DoW 2 as they are very different beasts.
How is the macro side reduced?? You mean with the huge armies and bases etc?
And yes I played SC last night and realised how utterly dated it is with squad limits, over powered units etc.
I said Macro was reduced (from DoW), not removed. Just the fact that you have no reason to create expansions in DoW is a testament to that. Macro in Supreme Commandander however, Is Huge.


Mazty said:
Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)
"There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games."
Only an autistic monkey would think SC2 is like TA. Those millions of people are mainly Koreans or people whose PC doesn't have the hardware to play a modern RTS - claiming popular vote doesn't make something the best.
That post wasn't comparing the games, it was saying different people find different games to be the best. TA and Starcraft are very different.

Mazty said:
Then please explain your giant cock-ups saying that there was no base building in DoW1 and that the macro is reduced.
Plus don't talk about games you clearly haven't played enough to comment on. Saying that the races and tech trees in SC are nearly identical shows you played a whole 5, maybe 15 mins of it?
Like I explained, that argument was referring to the DoW "series" that did remove base building as it advanced.

Compare the tech trees in Supreme Commander to Starcraft. By comparison the ones in SupCom are nearly identical. (the key word being "nearly") I'm sure that there are nuances necessary to play each individual race well.

Mazty said:
We both know the reason the specs are dumbed down is to cater for the people who haven't bothered getting a vaguely decent machine in the last decade.
Yes, how dare Blizzard cater to folk who can't afford to upgrade their PCs every year.

Mazty said:
The cut scenes (from what I've seen) look outstanding, but they are just pre-renders...
They're not. (EDIT: More specifically, most aren't. Of the ~45 minutes of cutscenes, about 10 are pre-rendered)
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?
It looks great on my machine. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are pulling out the old "Blizzard's art style is dumbed down" argument. I think they made choices as to how the game would look and feel and made those choices animate wonderfully. Is it photo-realistic? No. Do I want all of my games' graphics to be photo-realistic? No.

TB_Infidel said:
As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.
So your point is that you dislike building harvester/builder units. That is personal preference, and it doesn't mean that the game is not good for people who do not hate "harvesters" as you do.

Also, I'm an RTS fan. I don't have a problem with StarCraft. Stop trying to make your platform bigger than it is.
 

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
SHow are those mechanics fun? How are games without those mechanics the same or worse?
The mechanics make the game clunky, slow, and look bad. If you disagree, then for once, please say WHY they are fun, WHY they give the game a good pace, and WHY they should have kept those mechanics.
They're fun because I have fun playing with them. They should have kept those mechanics because a lot of people like (and even miss) those mechanics.

How exactly do you expect me to explain subjective concepts?
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Greg Tito said:
TB_Infidel said:
StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?
It looks great on my machine. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are pulling out the old "Blizzard's art style is dumbed down" argument. I think they made choices as to how the game would look and feel and made those choices animate wonderfully. Is it photo-realistic? No. Do I want all of my games' graphics to be photo-realistic? No.

TB_Infidel said:
As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.
So your point is that you dislike building harvester/builder units. That is personal preference, and it doesn't mean that the game is not good for people who do not hate "harvesters" as you do.

Also, I'm an RTS fan. I don't have a problem with StarCraft. Stop trying to make your platform bigger than it is.
The graphics are poor, hence why the requirements for it are so low.
The art style is childish and takes away the gritty feel the original had. C&C was criticised for going down the 'Micro-machine style' of graphics, yet again, everyone believes StarCraft 2 looks good because of this.
The level of detail on each unit is very low along with the animation. Even DoW (2004) had better animation per unit as each unit had casings from guns, sustained fire rates etc. compared to lift gun, twitch fire, lower gun, repeat.

Whilst I am on the topic of graphics, why is the camera limited? Seriously, what is Blizzards excuse for this?

[http://h.imagehost.org/view/0574/StarCraft_2_comparison]

Here is a comparison.
Please tell me how the top left picture looks great in comparison to these games or justifies how it looks.

Harvesters slow down the game and reduce army sizes.
Again, please tell me how this mechanic is better then what is in place in every other modern RTS. As you have given the game such a glowing review, how do you feel this mechanic is beneficial or at least, why it does not slow gameplay and why?
 

Nunny

New member
Aug 22, 2009
334
0
0
>in Reference to the above posts<


Graphics are poor? Tell that to all the people whome had thier graphics card melt.

Starcraft 2 even puts more pressure on my system then every single game you have mentioned as being better, only exception is a mod for TW.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
Nunny said:
>in Reference to the above posts<


Graphics are poor? Tell that to all the people whome had thier graphics card melt.

Starcraft 2 even puts more pressure on my system then every single game you have mentioned as being better, only exception is a mod for TW.
The graphics cards melted due to a coding error on the menu screens, not the actual gameplay itself. Considering this was a story on this very site I fail to see how you could make such an error.

Anyway here's my thought. Fuck hype. Seriously. This is why I dislike Blizzard's fanbase. Nothing but constant hype and fawning praise; it's like you're all a bunch of 4-year olds and Blizzard is your mother. Mommy is perfect and anyone who says otherwise is a horrible and evil person.

Starcraft I is not the undisputed once-and-future RTS king. There were already games in 1998 and 1999 pushing the RTS genre in directions that Starcraft feared to tread. Now I'm not saying that Starcraft II should've been innovative in new directions, because I know it would've shattered the fragile minds of the fanbase who seem to be stuck 12 years in the past. Of course it's ironic that in a time where we rail against sequels for being too samey, we give Starcraft II a free pass because "it wouldn't be Starcraft". You never hear people say "it wouldn't be Contra" or "it wouldn't be Mario". But I digress.

What I am saying is the constant fellatio of Starcraft II when it's becoming very very clear that it's not the power of Jesus in a box is turning off myself and others. Yes I include myself despite my constant railing against Starcraft II. See one of my friends owns the collector's edition, and when he talked about the game he didn't go on and on like it was the best game ever, instead he answered me a simple question: "is it fun?". And he said yes. Based on the concept of it being fun, and based on my preference for RTS games, I had him give me a guest pass. A guest pass which is currently installed on my computer and has 13 days left on it. I have not touched the game for two reasons. One is my job. The other is this thread and others like it. Not that the blathering masses of Starcraft II fans need any more support but simply I feel that it is getting less and less worth taking the time to see what the fuss is about when the only positive assertion about the game simply has to be "It is the greatest game ever", with no middle ground. And that is a childish and unrealistic expectation. It's not perfect, deal with it.
 

technoted

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,031
0
0
John Funk said:
LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already).

The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.
I stil occasionally have LAN games which I enjoy, I mean theres nothing better than having fun with your mates whilst playing some Starcraft. However I don't see why everyone is complaining about the LAN not being there, you can still get friends round together and connect to the same internet connection and have some games, and from what I've heard there's pretty much no lag when you do this either.

And you say there's problems with B.net like the cross region play, I haven't played any online games yet since I didn't get a chance to play SC2 till late on Monday night and story comes first, are this problems really big or just minor irritants?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Catalyst6 said:
paketep said:
kingcom said:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.
Oh please. Yes, there are *limited* applications for LAN support, but everyone's just being pissy because they can't pirate the game. That's pretty much why Battle.net is getting so much flak as well. It's no different than Steam, and I don't see people up at arms about them...
Last I checked, I could play HL2: DM, CS:S and others on LAN quite easily. And don't start with that bullshit 'piracy' argument, because it's just what it is - bullshit. First off, as far as I know, the single-player has been cracked from day one. It's only a matter of time before pirates make a LAN mod of their own. The first SC had multiple LAN or Bnet replacement applications.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Michael Davos said:
wonder if tito had a spoon to go with eating out blizzards ass like this..... game is no where near as flash as hes jerking it off to be
Yes, a titanium spoon! http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/kitchen/ddda/
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Harvesters slow down the game and reduce army sizes.
Again, please tell me how this mechanic is better then what is in place in every other modern RTS. As you have given the game such a glowing review, how do you feel this mechanic is beneficial or at least, why it does not slow gameplay and why?
Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
John Funk said:
JaredXE said:
"Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."


But it's not all of Starcraft II....I'm confused. Did Blizzard package all three stories at the last minute?
StarCraft I was The Hobbit. A smaller, self-contained story. This is Fellowship of the Ring. It is a huge campaign experience that happens to be the first third of an even larger story.
I was immensely satisfied with the content present in Starcraft II. There was a complete narrative arc from humble beginnings to a valiant stand against the swarm on Char. The story is obviously far from complete but what was presented was satisfying enough. The greater threats of the universe remain, certainly, but the immediate problems of the moment were resolved to my satisfaction. Beyond that, the game took three fairly lengthy sittings to complete so I could not lodge a complaint about quantity of content. Even if I never stepped into the multiplayer, the single player content alone was satisfying enough that it was worth my 60 bucks.

While I originally resented the idea of having to pay for three separate campaigns, should they meet the same level of quality I can now say that I have no problem with such a request.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Congratulations in merely reaffirming that StarCraft has the strongest fanbase who have no reason to say the game is good bar Blizzard made it and it's a game from their childhood.
I would like to point out (even though you were referring to an entirely different person with this quote) that I enjoy StarCraft 2 immensely and I don't fit into your sweeping generalization. I played StarCraft in passing only - my RTS series of choice at the time was Command and Conquer. There is no nostalgia there for me. More to the point, my preferred style of RTS has been the sort that focuses on the small scale tactical combat like Dawn of War. In spite of this, I still enjoyed the game.
 

Celador

New member
Oct 26, 2009
31
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Xocrates said:
TB_Infidel said:
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire
Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

TB_Infidel said:
These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Arguable and up to personal preference.

TB_Infidel said:
So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.
I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.
Congratulations in merely reaffirming that StarCraft has the strongest fanbase who have no reason to say the game is good bar Blizzard made it and it's a game from their childhood.

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why' ergo, you like it because of nostalgia, not because the game is actually any good.
Just tell me why:
-Harvesting minerals is fun
-Slow build speeds is fun
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
If it makes you feel any better - im "in" on this with you. Reminds me of people that just keep remembering how delicious was that particular ice-cream 20 years ago.

In regards to Starcraft 2 - they should've called it cyber-sport clicking game (CS-CG?) since it lacks "strategy" in it.

TB_Infidel said:
-Fixed game speeds are useful
-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?
Could also add - unbalanced damage across unit types and general lack of unit/building types.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Electric Gel said:
Novas the lass from the Starcraft ghost game isn't she? If so then yer, I'd have to agree, she looks very much like her. ...it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.
Yes, she's the character from Starcraft: Ghost that dropped off the face of the Earth before it went anywhere. She makes a cameo in SC2, though, and I have to say playing her level gave me about seven flavors of Kerrigan nostalgia.

About the other bit, I wouldn't say their character design choices are generic. The characters are all distinct and recognizable (even though I'm playing at minimum settings so they all look a bit like cartoony WoW characters) once you get used to them. They're just different, not bland.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Slycne said:
TB_Infidel said:
Harvesters slow down the game and reduce army sizes.
Again, please tell me how this mechanic is better then what is in place in every other modern RTS. As you have given the game such a glowing review, how do you feel this mechanic is beneficial or at least, why it does not slow gameplay and why?
Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.
This is why they have static resource points spread around the map at strategic locations to encourage fighting, or force fighting, at certain parts of the map. This was the case in all the RTS's I have talked about. Economy raiding is also possible in these games, the pace is merely faster, more fun, more exciting, and just as tactical, possibly more.

Nunny said:
>in Reference to the above posts<


Graphics are poor? Tell that to all the people whome had thier graphics card melt.

Starcraft 2 even puts more pressure on my system then every single game you have mentioned as being better, only exception is a mod for TW.
That's like saying the 195 Nvidia drivers were out of this world for every game because they melted GPU's -.-
Before making a really inane comment, look up why cards are melting because the last I checked having an uncapped FPS isn't the sign of good graphics, it's the sign of a technical screw up of monolithic proportions.

Greg Tito said:
Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.
If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.
 

6unn3r

New member
Aug 12, 2008
567
0
0
Still in two minds as to weather or not this is gona be just like the original Starcraft but with shiny graphics. The genre and gameplay hasn't really changed and adding new units is'nt really a big "2" worthy, it seems more like a fancy addon to brood war imo. Having said that Starcraft was, and to a degree still is, awesome.
 

Electric Gel

New member
Mar 26, 2009
85
0
0
Shjade said:
Electric Gel said:
Novas the lass from the Starcraft ghost game isn't she? If so then yer, I'd have to agree, she looks very much like her. ...it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.
Yes, she's the character from Starcraft: Ghost that dropped off the face of the Earth before it went anywhere. She makes a cameo in SC2, though, and I have to say playing her level gave me about seven flavors of Kerrigan nostalgia.

About the other bit, I wouldn't say their character design choices are generic. The characters are all distinct and recognizable (even though I'm playing at minimum settings so they all look a bit like cartoony WoW characters) once you get used to them. They're just different, not bland.
Well I'm still not entirely convinced, but I should probably go and play the game before jumping to conclusions. That cameo ghost level sounds a treat, especially since I was looking forward to that game for ages before it snuffed it.

Right, time to mug some orphans so I can get enough ready's to actually buy this bloody game.
 

Rythe

New member
Mar 28, 2009
57
0
0
Sigh...

I'm gonna have to back Xocrates on this one, as another person who's been playing RTS games since Dune II and have played a huge if not complete variety of them since. I'll add Homeworld to the list since it's being neglected. I also find Supreme Commander being toted as advanced comparatively laughable because it took Total Annihilation and 'downgraded' it to C&C/SC clone at number 2 and SupCom 1 had *terrible* unit balance between standard and experimentals. DoW as advanced? Are you blurring DoW 1 & 2 together? Because DoW 1 was a fun, alternate take on the C&C/SC formula while DoW 2 campaign was little more than a squad tactical action RPG. Combining DoW 1 & 2 would get you something like SC 2 in scope.

Anyways...

A strategy game is defined by your possible, viable options and limitations. As such, I adore Total Annihilation because of the incredible breadth of choice it offered (And if you thought this game was balanced, then you're stuck in nostalgia mode because the Flash Tank was anything but balanced). But going back to the main point, Starcraft 2 has a compelling and broad set of possibilities and limitations, which is what makes it a great RTS game.

Harvesting resources via workers requires more attention than other methods, true, but it also offers many more options than said other methods. This allows the old school harvester methodology to be compelling if you let it be and think about what strategic and tactical options it actually presents.

The first 2 minutes of a SC 2 match are often rote repeat, but variations in even that little time still make a difference and reveal something of a player's overall strategy. Also, this game is anything but slow. If you think it's slow, you're not playing Multi or Brutal Campaign modes. Third option is your computer is slow and the game is scaling the speed down to compensate for your rig's hardware deficiencies.

And speaking of Time. Time is huge for any RTS, but Time is especially critical for SC 2. The strategic and tactical options in the game are very demanding when put together, so how you use your time is a major measure of a player's skill for SC 2. If that's not your cup of tea, then so be it, however, it doesn't mean the game is outdated. Many 'outdated gimicks' of the game that people are complaining about are still there in order to tax your attention. It's essential to the formula. If you need more of an explanation, then let's just say this sort of strategy game isn't for you, like how Civilization might not be for you.

Saying that this game doesn't have cover and flanking and is thus outdated mostly means you're not in tune to the style of cover and flanking this game does have. Cover is rules of sight, like elevation and terrain obstacles. Flanking is outmaneuvering and outpositioning your opponents forces. We're not talking static, bland bonuses for standing in hex X or shooting someone from a rear arc, we're talking actual field maneuvers here. It's different and very much more demanding while still being deeply tactical in truth.

The UI in SC 2 has also been advanced to the cutting edge for this style of RTS. Complex, Queued actions? Check. Hotkeys for damn near everything? Check. The UI will even let you hotkey your production facilities and automatically spread build loads between them. Total Annihilation was one game I looked to for UI functions I liked, and SC 2 has them all and more (like spacebar cycling to hotspots). And yes, I don't bother with multiple monitors.

And people are complaining about the graphics? Seriously? Have you seen how much environmental detail has been packed into these levels? All the flora, fauna, and geographic details and animations? I have yet to see a game that's even close, including DoW 2 and C&C 4. Have you seen the models for the Thor? Battlecruiser? Mothership? Colossus? Those are crazy detailed and fluidly and complexly animated. Even the protoss warp in animations have a huge amount of detail and complexity. The game just breathes life, and that's before things start exploding, or get sliced and diced, or fried to a delicious crisp.

Oh, right, the story. It was simple, but there was depth in that simplicity, doubly so if you played through SC 1 and Brood War. Also great delivery if some cheesy lines don't turn you completely off. But seriously, you expect to go through all the motions of a complex conversation in 30 seconds like you'd find in a novel? SC 2 story was meant to be more like a graphic novel, and last I checked, branching diologue and plodding conversations were Bioware's schtick.

Final Edit - The comic I got in the collector's edition *is* a pretty colorful jumble of terrible. I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been, but still came off as cluttered, bland action sequences and dreadfully boring cast and plot.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Rythe said:
1. You win this thread.
2. I'm amused at the amount of haters that are clearly uneducated and ignorant in the way SC2 works in its most basic. Yes, it has harvesters, and yes, it adds a whole 'nother level of strategy to it; NO, the game is not slow in any way, shape or form (and excuse me, but where the fuck did you even pick that up?). Comparing its pace to the likes of Sins of a Solar Empire or DoW 1 and 2 and then saying it's slower really made me laugh out loud.
3. As you said, and this has to be reemphasised, have you people even seen just how much detail there is in the terrain? No, the graphics aren't the pinnacle of evolution for SC2, but they're damn good and they do their job well.
4. Any of you who think there is no or little strategy involved, I suggest you seeing some SC2 shoutcasts and see just how abundant and varied the strategies in SC2 are.

And, as is always mandatory in a SC2 thread, I'll prove me not being Blizzard fanboy and say this - the campaign in Starcraft 2 sucked, especially when comparing to previous Blizzard titles. Don't even try pulling that card on me.

There goes another poorly worded and laid out argument by me, but seriously, most of you haters don't know shit of what you're talking about, and I feel like some truly experienced and intelligent people here are arguing with a bunch of 5 year olds.
 

J.T.Hipster

New member
Aug 4, 2010
2
0
0
Is this review a joke? Starcraft II isn't a golden brick, its a RTS game that's so goddamn camp I half expect there to be a "biff" every time a Zergling hits my Marines. I mean, not to insult the reviewer or anything, but the game isn't fantastic by any means.

Multiplayer, fine. There are issues with lack of chat channels and map size limits, but whatever, there's always worse things. Multiplayer will be corrected in time.

Singleplayer? Good lord. Brutal is the only level that gives me a challenge, and even then a hefty bioball with my super upgraded medics puts it all to rest. But that's difficulty, and for now I'll refrain from it because its a bit too subjective. Instead, let's look at the dialogue.

Now, I'm a bit spoiled from the conversations in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, so voice acting as a rule of thumb no longer impresses me. Starcraft II wasn't even on the level of Knights of the Old Republic. The lines were just awful, and Mengsk is such a comical villain that I can't take him seriously. 1984 was the perfect way to describe him, because like 1984 the society he built is an oversimplified hunk of oppression and evil that is so mind bogglingly implausible that it becomes unbelievable. Missions have enemies not because its logical for the enemy army to be there, but because the game designers apparently thought that the mission needed something to fight against. Hell, some of the enemies are so forced in to the game that I almost laughed, especially with the Protoss. Religious fanatics? You'd think that a hero like Jim Raynor would be able to go "Hey buddies, I helped your entire race out awhile back, mind lending me this so that we can stop the Zerg?" Fanatical or not, I'd probably give the hero of my entire people something if he asked nicely.

And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.

Honestly, the game isn't bad, and I'd still recommend it to people who really liked Starcraft, but its not the greatest game of the year and its certainly not the best RTS of all time. If you compare it to Starcraft and Brood War, its worse than them (relative to the release date, of course.) But like I said, its not bad, its mediocre. Its a run of the mill, cookie cutter RTS that seems to carry the haunting echoes of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and everything that movie stood for. Which again, was pretty much just money.
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.
Everything you've been bitching about is SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I've played Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, and Dawn of War. I love all of them, and I enjoy Starcraft 2 IMMENSELY.

Starcraft 2 isn't trying to be a Dawn of War clone, it doesn't need squad tactics or a morale system, it went for what worked in the first and refined it. A lot of people like that system, myself included, and the game is still entertaining.

I like harvesting minerals as a means of getting more units.
I like having slow build speeds (means I actually have to pick which unit I want to spend time creating).
I like the fact that the game doesn't use a morale or cover system just because other RTS games have used it.

As for your continued suggestion that the game has poor graphics, reviewers everywhere have been praising it as one of the best looking games of the year. The cinematics are gorgeous and the actual "gameplay graphics" fit perfectly well. They don't need to be photorealistic to be considered "good graphics."
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
yes i dont have a great pc in fact i lagged the whole campain and was running it as low as the grafics go and i still ant to replay every mission and plan to. I dont play multiplayer on RTS games just as a rule if it cant stand alone it aint worth it. i am a little mad i cant earn achivments offline:(
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
Cristian Capatana said:
And yes, nothing new does make it an average game: doing the same thing as everyone else is mediocrity (at it's finest but still mediocrity). In every human field of activity there has always been one person that innovated or made a huge difference and for that they are great and many others that followed, polishing on the original concept, and for that they are only average!
...let me see if I can grasp where you're coming from. If a game isn't innovative, it's automatically a mediocre game?

How does that logic work? *raises eyebrow*
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
JeanLuc761 said:
Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.
Why do you like all this? What makes this game better then the competition out there?
Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.
Whilst on this topic, why does the childish art style complement a game which is meant to gritty as is shown by the fmv's in game? And if course the fmv's look good, all pre-rendered cinematic's look great.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
Slycne said:
TB_Infidel said:
Harvesters slow down the game and reduce army sizes.
Again, please tell me how this mechanic is better then what is in place in every other modern RTS. As you have given the game such a glowing review, how do you feel this mechanic is beneficial or at least, why it does not slow gameplay and why?
Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.
This is why they have static resource points spread around the map at strategic locations to encourage fighting, or force fighting, at certain parts of the map. This was the case in all the RTS's I have talked about. Economy raiding is also possible in these games, the pace is merely faster, more fun, more exciting, and just as tactical, possibly more.

Nunny said:
>in Reference to the above posts<


Graphics are poor? Tell that to all the people whome had thier graphics card melt.

Starcraft 2 even puts more pressure on my system then every single game you have mentioned as being better, only exception is a mod for TW.
That's like saying the 195 Nvidia drivers were out of this world for every game because they melted GPU's -.-
Before making a really inane comment, look up why cards are melting because the last I checked having an uncapped FPS isn't the sign of good graphics, it's the sign of a technical screw up of monolithic proportions.

Greg Tito said:
Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.
If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.
ok first off i want this to be clear i do NOT play any RTS games online there for all games must prove them selves with single player. Now saying that i loved the campain and plan to keep replaying it till the next one comes out and before you say it yes im a little mad i dont get all 3 campains but hey this one shined for me much better then ANY RTS game ive played in the last 10 years and yes i have played most of them. Now before you go off and say im a blizz fan boy let me say this ahem I HATED YES HATED STARCRAFT 1! IT HAD A VERY LOSELY FITED STORY AND I HATED IT! now that thats out of the way i say pick the game up and stop trying to compair it to art its fun play it. you dont like it pawn it and STFU!
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
J.T.Hipster said:
And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.
.
Nova isn't the right choice. If you go with Tosh you will discover that the Specters were fine all along. There isn't any moral choices in SC2 at all. Just missions that let you pick different rewards and different ways to solve that particular side mission.

So yeah, you just complained about nothing really. ^^
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Xocrates said:
Mazty said:
Like crap you've played DoW or Supreme Commander, and if you have you blatantly haven't played enough of it to make any comment on them - to say there is no base building is just a flat out lie as there is a hell of a lot of base building. Don't confuse DoW and DoW 2 as they are very different beasts.
How is the macro side reduced?? You mean with the huge armies and bases etc?
And yes I played SC last night and realised how utterly dated it is with squad limits, over powered units etc.
I said Macro was reduced (from DoW), not removed. Just the fact that you have no reason to create expansions in DoW is a testament to that. Macro in Supreme Commandander however, Is Huge.


Mazty said:
Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)
"There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games."
Only an autistic monkey would think SC2 is like TA. Those millions of people are mainly Koreans or people whose PC doesn't have the hardware to play a modern RTS - claiming popular vote doesn't make something the best.
That post wasn't comparing the games, it was saying different people find different games to be the best. TA and Starcraft are very different.

Mazty said:
Then please explain your giant cock-ups saying that there was no base building in DoW1 and that the macro is reduced.
Plus don't talk about games you clearly haven't played enough to comment on. Saying that the races and tech trees in SC are nearly identical shows you played a whole 5, maybe 15 mins of it?
Like I explained, that argument was referring to the DoW "series" that did remove base building as it advanced.

Compare the tech trees in Supreme Commander to Starcraft. By comparison the ones in SupCom are nearly identical. (the key word being "nearly") I'm sure that there are nuances necessary to play each individual race well.

Mazty said:
We both know the reason the specs are dumbed down is to cater for the people who haven't bothered getting a vaguely decent machine in the last decade.
Yes, how dare Blizzard cater to folk who can't afford to upgrade their PCs every year.

Mazty said:
The cut scenes (from what I've seen) look outstanding, but they are just pre-renders...
They're not. (EDIT: More specifically, most aren't. Of the ~45 minutes of cutscenes, about 10 are pre-rendered)
-I've no idea what you're on about saying no need for expansions in DoW - can you elaborate?
-There is only DoW 1 with 3 expansions and DoW 2 with 1 expansion....It's hard to debate something when you make such a large mistake. The tech trees in Sup Com are nothing alike, and SC2 tech trees are almost identical with each unit filling one specific role. So again please stop talking about a game you clearly spend the best part of 15 mins playing.
-The graphics are so dated we are talking an AGP GPU can run the game. That's not updating your PC every year, that's running a machine from the best part of a decade ago so stop acting as if I'm demanding DX11 with triple SLI.
- Really? Any chance of posting some pics with altered texture quality etc as I find it very hard to believe.